Of the Ottoman Universe

Home , Azeb, Battal Gazi, Battle of Preveza, Evrenos, Hafsid dynasty, Hayreddin Barbarossa

GAZA AS “THE THEORY OF EVERTHING” OF THE OTTOMAN UNIVERSE:

UNDERSTANDING CONTACT AND CONFLICT

IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

by Deniz Özlem Çevik Department of History and Classical Studies McGill University, Montréal

August 2016

A Thesis Submitted to McGill University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts

Abstract

This study is an attempt to evaluate how encounters between Muslims and non-Muslims in the early modern Mediterranean were represented by the Ottomans. It compares the representations from two periods, medieval Anatolia and early modern Mediterranean, to discover the transitivity of manners of narrating encounters from a region to another, and from a time period to another. The main objective is to discuss the importance of “gaza” concept, which literally means “holy war” and of one of the most heated topic among Ottomanists, as the dominant way of narrating the encounters among Muslims in two periods. Through a comparative reading of two texts that reflect this concept, a prose biography of a Muslim corsair from the sixteenth century and a warrior epic from the thirteenth century, it offers a two-layered analysis of the subject. In the first layer, the resemblances between socio-political structures of medieval Anatolia and that of early modern Mediterrenean that allowed “gaza” to migrate from one to another will be evaluated. In the second layer, it shows the discursive similarities that prove the transitivity of “gaza” as a narrative tool from one textual world to another.

Résumé

Ce mémoire a pour but d’analyser les réprésentations ottomanes des rencontres entre les musulmans et les chretiens dans la Méditerrannée durant l’époque moderne. Une comparaison entre des réprésentations écrites au Moyen Âge et à l’époque moderne sera effectuée afin de découvrir comment les discours sur les rencontres interconfessionnelles se sont transférés d’une région à une autre ainsi que d’une époque à une autre. Une attention particulière sera portée sur le concept de gaza (guerre sainte) qui était au fondement de ce discours. Ce dernier, est entre autre véhiculé par deux manuscrits qui seront analysés ici : une biographie d’un corsaire musulman très connu écrite au 16e siècle et une épique de guerre écrite au 13e siecle. L’analyse comportera deux niveaux. D’abord, des ressemblances entre les organisations sociopolitiques anatoliennes et méditéranéennes durant le Moyen Âge et l’époque moderne seront étayées. Ensuite, des similarités seront présentées venant ainsi prouver le transfert du concept de gaza en tant qu’outil discursif entre des mondes différents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...... 3 List of Abbreviations ...... 4 Introduction: Stopping the Clock ...... 6 Part One: Context ...... 13 I-Introduction ...... 13 II-Time, Place and People: From Medieval Anatolia to Early Modern Mediterranean ...... 16 III-Towards a Centralized State: How to Deal with Gaza Tradition ...... 23 IV- Migration of Gaza from Land to Sea ...... 27 V- From Turcoman Warriors of Anatolia to Muslim Corsairs of Mediterranean ...... 34 Part Two: The Voyage of Gaza as a Discourse ...... 41 I-Introduction ...... 42 II- Questions on the Authenticity of Sources ...... 44 III- The Composition of the GHP and Tevarih ...... 51 IV- Narratological Continuities and Contextual Differences ...... 55 a. Representations of the Encounters between the Characters ...... 55 b. Geography ...... 62 c. Language and Terminology ...... 66 d. Representations of Habits and Rituals ...... 69 V-Final Remarks ...... 78 Part Three: Paradigms ...... 80 I-Introduction ...... 81 II-Two Paradigms and Two Mediterraneans ...... 82 III-Gaza or Multiculturalism? How to Convert a Knowledge into Comprehension ...... 85 Conclusion: Is Gaza “the Theory of Everything” of the Ottoman Universe? ...... 90

Bibliography ...... 93

Acknowledgements

In the process of writing this thesis, I am grateful to my supervisor Dr. Giancarlo Casale for his both academic and personal support with his gentle ways to make me more disciplined, and his effort throughout the process of editing and redaction. I also owe an intellectual debt to our weekly meetings by which I developed the raw ideas about this thesis.

My first intellectual debt, however, belongs to my parents who provided me a home full of books and discussions which was seemingly my first academic environment. Without my mother’s support, I would not have survived during the years of living away from home. And many thanks to my father, Still Crazy after Years, the first Québécois I have ever met, who paved the way for my graduate degree in Montréal where he studied and showed me both the pleasure and rigour to be an immigrant-Québécoise.

I would like to thank Prof. Nancy Partner who introduced me the work of Paul Ricoeur and changed my perception of history writing. I am also grateful to Prof. Anastassios Anastassiadis for his support in my first year when my mind was full of questions.

I should mention the names of my friends Ömer Kazancı, Nesibe Sena Arslan, Kerim Kartal, Ezgi Memiş and Kerem Renda for their support from the distant parts of the world, and Remzi Çağatay Çakırlar whose thesis was an example for me to understand the extents of a good MA thesis. And last but not least, special thanks to Yusuf Ziya Karabıçak, whose support, friendship and guidance in Montréal always encouraged me in trusting myself.

I am also grateful to all librarians of McLennan and Islamic Studies Library whose help is appreciated especially during the last month of editing my work and to the Department of History and Classical Studies for the fund for getting one of the manuscripts from the British Library.

And finally, thanks to Jean-Michel Boivin-Deschênes for being not only a lovely partner but also my best friend and a fellow graduate student who always trusted in the quality of my work. Without his support, encouragement and patience, this challenging process of writing would have been more stressful and less joyful. Merci infiniment!

List of Abbreviations

BNF: Bibliothèque Nationale de France

BL : British Library

GHP: Gazavât-ı Hayreddin Paşa

IA: İslam Ansiklopedisi, Diyanet (Encyclopedia of Islam)

IU: İstanbul Üniversitesi (Istanbul University)

Tevarih: Tevârih-i Hayreddin Paşa

In memory of Başar

INTRODUCTION: Stopping the Clock

The first impression of a history student studying the history of the Mediterranean is that of a grandfather clock pendulum swinging back and forth between the conventional views of seeing the Mediterranean as a “conflict zone” or as a “contact zone”. When the pendulum is swinging back, the people of the early modern Mediterranean are defined as actors who are preconditioned to engage in wars with each other in the name of religion. The essential distinction and timeless dispute between two civilizational worlds, Islam and the West, characterizes the region.1 When it is swinging forth, the same people are portrayed as humble, flexible and pragmatic agents who peacefully interact with each other. At the end, their interaction creates a cosmopolitan and multicultural Mediterranean which is the cradle of many different cultural and religious groups. This time, the peaceful co-existence of different cultures characterize the region.

For most of the last half century, if not longer, historians who focus on the Mediterranean of the early modern period have generally have mainly fallen into two camps. The first camp consists of scholars who have sided with the view of the Mediterranean as a region of confrontation. According to this view, the identity of people in this period was preconditioned and motivated mainly by religious dichotomies.2 Living in two essentially different worlds,

1 Instead of Islam vs. Christianity, the scholars of this view prefer Islam vs. West or Europe. See, Franco Cardini, Cardini, Europe and Islam (Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, 2001) and Bernard Lewis, The Muslim discovery of Europe (New York: W.W. Norton, 1982). 2 Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe, 171-173: “For the Muslim, religion was the core of identity, of his own and therefore of other men’s.” “He (the European) is different because he follows another religion. As a result of this difference he is presumed to be hostile and known to be inferior”.

Christendom and Islamdom, those people acted and socialized according to their belief systems, which kept them permanently separate. From the Western perspective, the Muslims or Turks who invaded and settled in their holy lands were their eternal enemies since the first Crusade.

From the Muslim perspective, the non-Muslims were the enemies whom they should fight against to conquer their territory. Meanwhile the scholars who fit to the second category draw a quite different and alternative picture of early modern Mediterranean while criticising the conventional views of the scholars in the first category. They portray a cosmopolitan

Mediterranean region as a “contact zone” where it is impossible to define people’s identity and sense of belonging merely based on their religious backgrounds. Putting emphasis on interaction instead of conflict, they argue that the construction of a self and its visions of other do not necessarily depend on ethnic or religious motivations. While refuting to the structuralist/essentialist division, they touch upon the transitional aspect of people’s identities which are more flexible and pragmatic than expected.3

As a part of the Mediterranean world since their first conquests in the Aegean coast in the fourteenth century, the Ottomans have had their place in this discussion, portrayed either as the stereotypical representatives of militant Islamdom in the region or the tolerant practitioners of co-existence with their non-Muslim neighbours. Neither are these two opposing representations purely the creation of modern scholars, since evidence for both can be found in texts produced

3 See, Eric Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople: nation, identity, and coexistence in the early modern Mediterranean (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), and “Neighbors: Venetians and Ottomans in Early Modern Galata” in Multicultural Europe and cultural exchange in the Middle Ages and Renaissance ed. Peter James Helfers (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2005); Natalie E. Rothman, Brokering empire trans-imperial subjects between Venice and Istanbul (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012); and Emrah Safa Gurkan, "Mediating Boundaries: Mediterranean Go-Betweens and Cross-Confessional Diplomacy in Constantinople, 1560-1600". Journal of Early Modern History. 19 (2015): 107-128.

7 by the Ottomans themselves. For the former view, the sources where the Ottomans represented themselves most forcefully as the fighters of Islam against non-Muslims were primarily literary works, a wide range of texts including the warrior epics of medieval Anatolia as well as later texts written by Ottoman court historians. All of these adopted a version of the early Islamic discourse of gaza4, a term that literally means “to fight” in Arabic but later developed to mean

“to fight in the name of religion”, and used interchangeably with jihad (another Arabic term).

The exact meaning of gaza and jihad as they are used in Ottoman narrative sources, which are composed in Turkish as opposed to Arabic, and the way in which its meaning changed over time, has been glossed by modern scholars in many different ways and constitutes one of the most heated debates among Ottomanists since the early twentieth century.5 Even so, the idea that gaza or “holy war” was somehow central to Ottoman political and cultural identity is a constant running though scholarship based primarily on these literary sources. Meanwhile, the scholars of the opposing “co-existence” view also have plenty of evidence to support their position. They mainly use archival documents, be they the records of foreign interpreters at the Ottoman court

(known as “dragomans”), -ambassadors -and other representatives of the foreign states, or the documents from the Ottoman archives called ‘ahdname,6 to demonstrate just how common it was for agents to cross cultural and religious borders.7 The resulting disagreement, therefore, is not a matter of two different interpretations of the same sources, but rather two different paradigms of

4 In this study, I prefer to use the Arabic form (e.g mujahid, jihad) for Arabic loan-words in Turkish with the exception of gaza. Since it is the main concept and all the sources mentioning gaza that will be used in this thesis are written in Turkish, I will rely on the Turkish spelling of this term, instead of Arabic form “ghaza”. 5 IA, Cemal Kafadar, “Gaza” and Ahmet Özel, “Cihad”. 6 ‘Ahdnames are the Ottoman documents that summarize the diplomatic negotiations with foreign states. For a longer discussion on ‘ahdnames, see Gurkan, “Mediating Boundaries: Mediterranean Go-Betweens and Cross- Confessional Diplomacy in Constantinople, 1560-1600”, 108. 7 Natalie Rothman, Interpreting Dragomans: Boundaries and Crossings in the Early Modern Mediterranean, Comparative Studies in Society and History Vol. 51, No. 4 (Oct., 2009), pp. 771-800.

8 history built upon two entirely separate bodies of evidence: archival evidence that reflects a socio-economic world of encounters, and literary evidence that reflect a textual-discursive world of encounters.

Thinking about this problem led me to contemplate more generally on the nature of social reality and the multiplicity of the past. Or, to put it a different way, I began to rethink early

Ottoman history as a reality that could be divided into two virtual layers, one a socio-economic and political layer of social reality that included the practical/legal aspects of life; and another a textual/discursive layer that reflected the intellectual/literary aspects of life. Whereas the former seems to be embedded in the archival documents about political, economic and legal issues that construct and reflect the dominant power paradigms of its day, the latter is echoed by the narrative texts that are produced by a complex mental mechanism, thereby reflecting not only the power paradigms of the moment but also the heritage of traditions of writing, individual authorial intention, and questions of patronage. And while the former layer presents us a world characterised by peaceful interaction, the latter portrays a region of conflict -at least- at the first glance. The result is a dichotomy between the conventional conflict thesis and its alternative contact thesis, the latter characterised by a distaste of literary sources that were seen merely as the narratives of an imagined civilizational conflict that was not actually there. However, I offer a new approach that argues against the separation of these two layers, and in favour of a new interpretation of the literary sources that can actually include both layers. Far from serving merely as evidence of conflict, these sources can mirror what I call the “multiplicity of social reality”. Therefore, I argue that these two kinds of evidence –archival and literary- are never mutually exclusive because the literary sources can never be separated from the socio-economic and political aspects of social reality.

Moreover, this thesis argues that just as these different evidentiary layers cannot be separated from each other, neither can the contact and conflict be seperated either. As such, this thesis is not only an attempt to examine the complexity of the meanings of contact and conflict in the early modern Mediterranean world reflected in the literary texts, but also an exploration of how this complexity affected the later views on the clash or coexistence of societies in the early modern Mediterranean world. This attempt requires three intertwined tasks that constitute three parts of this thesis: the contextual, the discursive, and the historiographical.

The first, contextual part starts with the contextual depictions of encounters between

Muslims and non-Muslims in two crucial geo-historical regions of interaction: medieval Anatolia and the early modern Mediterranean. The main theme is a comparison of those two regions in terms of the socio-economic and political conditions that enabled a sense of gaza to flourish among the Muslims living in the frontier zones. The former region, Anatolia, is where the gaza concept was initially adapted by the first Turcoman principalities starting from the eleventh century. The latter is where medieval gaza spirit survived into the sixteenth century, and retained its earlier frontier connotations despite attempts by the Ottoman center to imperialise its meaning. In other words, I argue that the early modern sixteenth-century Mediterranean world was in several crucial respects more similar to the medieval Anatolian world than it was to

Ottoman center of its own day. From here, I move on to consider specific representations of

Muslim/non-Muslim encounters in both medieval and early modern sources to discover the similar ways they narrate different worlds. This part argues that similar patterns are also present at the textual level. In other words, it shows how the textual representations of the medieval

Anatolian and early modern Mediterranean worlds reflect the contextual similarities and differences. Finally, I complete the analysis by offering a historiographical approach that sheds

10 new light on the changing paradigmatic approaches to the Mediterranean in modern scholarship, outlining how the binary opposition between the Mediterranean as a conflict zone and the

Mediterranean as a contact zone is actually a continuation of the competing representations from earlier periods, which can be found already present in the literary texts to be discussed in this work.

This study has three limits in terms of chronology, geography and theme/evidence. First of all, it encompasses a large timespan from the twelfth century to the sixteenth century, during which the way to define contact and conflict by the Ottomans was shaped. I will use the term

“medieval” for the period from the twelfth century to thirteenth century, when the Ottomans were one of many small Turcoman principalities of Anatolia. From the end of the fourteenth to the beginning of the seventeenth century, when the Ottomans became a centralised empire, I will use the term “early modern”. This periodic identification is not fixed however, and it does not neglect the transitivity of each of the periods in question.

The geographic scope, meanwhile, includes two comparable frontier zones. The first is the medieval Anatolian frontier zones that included the northwestern, western and eastern zones of Turcoman-Byzantine and Turcoman-Venetian encounters. The second frontier zone is the early modern Mediterranean zone that included the Aegean Sea, the Levant and theNorth African coastal zones of Ottoman-Venetian and Ottoman-Spanish encounters.

Finally, the last limit is related to theme/evidence. This thesis will only use literary works that narrate the encounters between Muslims and non-Muslims, rather than documentary evidence. In doing so, it will offer a new reading of three sources that reflect unique Muslim perspectives on the encounters through their employment the gaza concept. The first source is

Danismendname, originally an oral warrior epic that was first written out in the thirteenth century and reflects an early perspective on how to narrate the contacts and conflicts in the eastern Anatolian frontier zone. This source will constitute the example of a medieval sense of narratives about encounters. The second source is Gazavât-ı Hayreddin Paşa (The Book of Holy

Wars of Hayreddin Pasha, henceforth the GHP), a biographical narrative of two the brothers

Oruc and Hizir, otherwise known as “The Barbarossa Brothers”, who are remembered as the most famous Muslim corsairs of the early modern period. As I will show, this source uses gaza to narrate the frontier zones of the sixteenth-century Mediterranean in ways that are essentially similar to the Danishmendname. It will be analysed as a source that constitute the Mediterranean heir of the Anatolian sense of encounters. Finally, the third source, Tevârih-i Hayreddin Paşa

(The History of Hayreddin Pasa, henceforth Tevarih) is based on the same narrative as the GHP but is composed in a different manner of writing that reflects a courtly, imperial sense of encounter that is more characteristic of the early modern Ottoman center than either the frontier ones of medieval Anatolia or the sixteenth-century Mediterranean. The analyses of these three texts in conversation will therefore allow a full evaluation of their internal the consistencies and inconsistencies and show how it is hard to reduce the history of contacts and conflicts to a simple story of either holy wars or peaceful co-operation.

Now, the thesis returns where it has started: the pendulum of a grandfather’s clock. When they look at the Mediterranean, modern historians who tend to see a “contact zone” of flexible identities during the early modern period tend to see this as a portrait of what is actually missing in the modern world. In this sense, they are not so different from the early modern historians who tended to see a “conflict zone” of fixed identities as a portrait of what was actually missing from the world of their own historical experience. Comparing the concerns of the modern day

12 historian with those of the early modern, this thesis explores the similarities between their motivation, and the enduring influence of the latter upon the former. Even if it does not provide an answer for how to stop the clock, it is an attempt to show both how long it has been running and why it continues to tick and tock.

PART I – CONTEXT

“What is the Mediterranean? Is it a collection of states bound by freely concluded treaty obligations to one another? Or is it a cultural or even a civilizational frontier where two hostile religions face each other in perpetual enmity? The answer has always been an awkward mix of both.”8

I- Introduction

In the history of the Ottoman Empire, despite its numerous changes and transformations, what never changed from the thirteenth century to the twentieth century was the reality of direct contact between Muslims and non-Muslims. This was a necessity of the geography, which compelled the Ottomans to deal with non-Muslims in many different forms: as enemies, allies, subjects or trade partners but always as next-door neighbours. Those contacts took place in various ways and the non-Muslims were not always the same. In the early years of Ottoman beylik, or medieval principality, the non-Muslims were mostly the Byzantines and the contact

8 Molly Greene, Catholic pirates and Greek merchants: a maritime history of the Mediterranean (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2010), 15.

13 took place in the ambiguous grey zone between competition and co-operation. Subsequently, with the Ottomans’ expansion into Byzantine territories, the shape of contact evolved towards subjecthood, as the Ottoman state gradually transformed into a multi-ethnic and religious empire that contained a considerable non-Muslim population that now became their subjects. Another outcome of those conquests was that the Ottomans started to be bordered by the territories of another confession different from the non-Muslims that they knew as their subjects. These were the Catholic/Latin states of Europe. Meanwhile, the expansion into the Adriatic Sea, Eastern

Mediterranean and the North African coast moved the encounters with this new group from the land to the sea. By the sixteenth century, it was this new group, in this new contact zone, that would take the place previously occupied by the population of the Byzantine Empire, mostly the

Orthodox Christians, the Armenians and the Georgians in medieval Anatolia. Even if this new kind of non-Muslims was simply described in the sources as “infidels” to be fought in a stereotypical sense that we might call “enmity”, the encounters did not take place in the form of territorial conquest. Instead, the change of location from land to sea led to new forms of contact such as mercantile activities and prisoner exchange as well as a new form of conflict which was the corsair raid. These corsair raids were referred to as gaza by the Ottoman chronicles, just as the late medieval oral and written sources had called the raids into the non-Muslim territories of

Anatolia as gaza.9 And when the concept of gaza is discussed, it should always be remembered that the term itself presupposes two elements: the existence of Muslims, and of non-Muslims, and thus of their co-existence in a shared world. Compared to the land-based raids and conquests into the Byzantine territories of the late medieval era, those sea-based corsair raids seem not to

9 Halil Inalcik defines it as a subdue, a reason to fight. See Halil Iṅ alcık, The Ottoman Empire; the classical age, 1300-1600 (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973), 7.

14 have had the intention of territorial expansion, instead being a kind of everyday routine of survival at sea. As such, they require a redefinition of the dichotomy of contact and conflict.

Although these two were intertwined, they were always mediated by violence in a way that reminds us not to confuse co-existence with tolerance.

By focusing on this period, academically called the early modern era, when the Ottomans gained access to the Mediterranean through the completion of the conquest of the Anatolian coast and Morea peninsula, this section attempts to dig deeper into the meaning of these terms,

“contact” and “conflict” which are too often used but under-theorized when it comes to the history of Muslim-non-Muslim relations. Through a thorough analysis of the well-known biography of a Muslim corsair, the famous Hayreddin “Barbarossa” who was active in the

Mediterranean between c.1500 and 1532, it attempts to show the changing dynamics of contact and conflict with non-Muslims in the sea and the way they were narrated in the Ottoman chronicles by invoking the well-worn terminology of gaza. In addition, this thesis also questions the ambiguity of the term gaza itself as employed by the Ottoman chroniclers, and explores how this ambiguity in meaning shaped the memory of a range of activities that included both instances of peaceful interaction and of conflict. In order to accomplish this, I turn to an analysis of the concept of gaza as it appears in exemplars of a well-known Ottoman literary genre called the gazâvâtnâme, literary “the books of gaza”. This part attempts to discuss the transitive nature of gaza that makes it fit different contexts starting from the medieval Islamic world to Turco-

Byzantine Anatolian world and finally to the early modern Mediterranean world. This adventure of gaza will be contextualised with the help of the information provided by gazâvâtnâme texts from medieval Anatolia and early modern Mediterranean.

II- Time, Place and People: From Medieval Anatolia to Early Modern Mediterranean

Neither gaza or gazi (literary “a practitioner of gaza” or “warrior of the faith”) nor the literary genre of the gazâvâtnâme (or alternatively fetihnâme, meaning “book of conquests” or zafernâme meaning “book of victories”) were originally invented by the Ottomans. Instead, the usage of gaza to describe a holy war against non-Muslims goes back to the earliest centuries of

Islam, when the first examples of the genre emerge, called megâzi in Arab literature.10 These early writings which were mainly related to the holy wars of the Prophet Mohammad and his descendants, shaped the way subsequent generations would narrate the lives and achievements of

Muslim warriors. It is important to emphasize here that contrary to the medieval Anatolian warrior epics that were orally transmitted, the early examples of gaza literature in the Islamic heartlands were actually written sources such as Kitâbü’l-Megâzî written by Vâkıdî’nin (d.

207/822-23) that narrates the gazas of the Prophet Mohammad.11 The gaza concept introduced by these early writings set the standards for how to write an Islamic epic with two important characteristics. The first distinctive feature is that they depended on “a struggle between two religio-civilisational orientations,” as noted by Cemal Kafadar. The second is the importance of the main character(s) in the storyline who might be the Prophet himself, caliphs, frontier warlords (beys) or the later sultans depending on where and when they were told.12 How those features changed when gaza travelled from the Islamic Golden Age heartlands to medieval

Anatolia and later to the Ottoman Mediterranean is the main focus of this thesis.

10 IA, “Gazavatname”. 11 IA, “Vâkıdî”. 12 Kafadar, Cemal. 1995. Between two worlds: the construction of the Ottoman state. Berkeley: University of California Press., p.63.

How an early Islamic written tradition entered Anatolia and established itself in the orally narrated warrior stories is the first question to deal with. Since gaza requires a Muslim group of warriors engaged in offensive war and a defensive group of non-Muslims to be fought against,

Anatolia in the medieval period was at most fruitful region for the genre as early as the Abbasid period (750-1258 CE) when it first became a frontier region between the Byzantines and Arab territories. These encounters carried the concept from the Islamic heartlands to Anatolia, and the oral epics evolved from stories originally told about Muslims fighting against pre-Islamic pagan

Arabs to new versions about the struggles of Muslims against Orthodox Christians of the

Byzantine Empire as well as Latin Crusaders. In the post-Manzikert period (beginning 1071 CE), when the Seljukid Turks took the control over the central and eastern parts of Anatolia, gaza then became Turkified, since the newcomer Muslim population of Anatolia was mainly

Turcophone.13 Turkification of the literary tradition went hand in hand with its transformation from a written form to an oral one, since these newcomers were mostly illiterate. These early

Turkish narratives were mainly based on the achievements of frontier warriors, and were orally circulated among the new Turco-Muslim population of Anatolia. The transformation of the oral warrior stories into written war epics followed the Turkification of the tradition and did not begin to take place until the end of the thirteenth century, roughly coinciding with the formation of the

Ottoman state. Cemal Kafadar notably connects this medieval oral tradition with the late medieval and early Ottoman written epics, and states that the “thematic and narratological continuities indicate that some of the later epics simply reworked parts of the earlier ones for

13 Iṡ mail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu devletleri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1984).

17 new contexts and audiences”.14 The heroic definition of the characters and the clash between two civilizational worlds as the main theme seem never to have changed, from the first example of the genre even until the latest examples written in the eighteenth century.15

As Kafadar points out, the continuities between the early Islamic examples of the genre and their Anatolian counterparts were evident. But the differences are also worth discussing in order to provide a comparative basis for understanding how gaza would later be adapted from the medieval Anatolian context to the early modern Mediterranean world. The first and most obvious change is one of language, from Arabic and Persian to Turkish. This reflected a major demographic transformation of Anatolia after the battle of Manzikert (1071 CE) as Anatolia witnessed a major influx of Turkish speakers of the east. Secondly, the first written versions of gaza literature in Anatolia coincided with the end of Crusades. This signalled a change in the description of the enemy in gaza texts. Even if the term “infidel” continued to be used, what it refers to seemed to change when the concept travelled from the Islamic heartlands to Anatolia.

Instead of the pre-Islamic Arab pagans of the first megazi text the Kitâbü’l-Megâzî16, and later the mix of Byzantine and Latin Crusaders from the Abbasid period, the first written examples of

Anatolian gaza texts used “infidel” to refer almost exclusively to Christian population of the

Byzantine Empire, since the non-Muslim population of Anatolia at that time was composed of

Orthodox Christians, Armenians and Georgians.17 This brought about another change that shows

14 Cemal Kafadar, Between two worlds: the construction of the Ottoman state (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 63. 15 Agâh Sırrı Levend and 'Ali Bey Mihaloǧlu, Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloǧlu Ali Bey'in Ġazavāt-nāmesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1956). 16 IA, Mustafa Fayda, “Vakıdi”. 17 A. C. S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola, and Sara Nur Yildiz, Islam and Christianity in medieval Anatolia (Burlington, VT:Ashgate Publishing Company, 2015), 1.Even if there was a Crusader Kingdom in Antioch at that time, its inhabitants were mostly Orthodox except the ruling elite who were Roman Catholics.

18 how profoundly gaza was transformed by the new context of the Turco-Byzantine frontier, which required multilayered relationships that mixed both enmity and partnership. Those relationships allowed for the emergence of new types of “hybrid” characters in gaza texts such as

Artuhi in Danishmendname who was a Greek warrior converted to Islam, or Kose Mihal who was a Greek companion of Osman, the founder of the Ottoman dynasty. Other examples include the protagonist of the contemporary the Byzantine legend Digenis Akritas, whose father was once Muslim, or Evrenos Bey referred to as a gazi despite having formerly been Christian and a military chief from one of the leading families of the Balkans.18 The fourth and the last change to the gaza narrative as it adapted to Anatolia was the important role given to Sufi orders/dervish circles and their ties to gazi milieu.19

It is not known when and how the Ottomans themselves embraced the term gaza. There are no references to the Ottomans or their founder Osman in the frontier narratives of medieval

Anatolia.20 In the thirteenth and fourteenth century, when the orally told gaza stories gradually started to also circulate in written form, the Ottomans were one of the Turcoman principalities that emerged in the power vacuum caused by the breakup of Mongol rule.21 Since only the

Ottomans later transformed their principality into an empire, it was always thought in a

18 Heath W. Lowry, The nature of the early Ottoman state (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003.), 8. Kose Mihal has been considered as a gazi with Greek origin later converted to Islam and a fellow of Osman. However, in his later work Heath Lowry stated that he could not find any sources mentioning his conversion to Islam. And Artuhi is a Greek warrior according to IA but Kafadar suspects that we was an Armenian in Between two worlds: the construction of the Ottoman state,67. In the actual source, there is no reference to his ethnic origin but being a Christian. Artuhi says “Benüm atam göçkinci, tag halayıkındandır” (My origins are nomads).” Irène Meĺ ikoff, La geste de Melik Dānism̧ end: et́ ude critique du Dānism̧ endnāme (Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1960), 22. For Digenis Akritas, See Kafadar, Between two worlds: the construction of the Ottoman state, 82 and Lowry, The nature of the early Ottoman state, 59. 19 Kafadar, Between two worlds: the construction of the Ottoman state, 110. Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 42. 20 Kafadar, Between two worlds, 78. IA, “Gaza”. 21 A. C. S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola, and Sara Nur Yildiz, Islam and Christianity in medieval Anatolia, 2.

19 teleological manner that there must have been something distinctive that allowed them to flourish as an empire, and that distinguished them from other Turcoman principalities, even if there was no consensus about what this distinguishing feature was. According to one early thesis, advanced by Herbert Gibbons in The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, published in 1916, the

Ottoman state was unique because of its unique ability to incorporate members of the Byzantine elite, which gave it an advantage over its rivals. Later, in the 1930s, Fuad Köprülü had argued instead that it was the Ottomans’ affiliation with the noble Turkish tribe of the Oġuz that had given them an advantage But it was not until Paul Wittek’s The Rise of the Ottoman Empire, published in 1938, that gaza was proposed as the distictive feature that allowed the Ottomans to triumph over the other Anatolian principalities. Wittek went so far as to say that the raison d’être of the early Ottoman principality was gaza, a state permanent and singularly dedicated to holy war activities against non-Muslims and the expansion of the frontiers of Islam.22

Since then, the validity of Wittek’s argument, known as the “Gazi Thesis” has remained the most hotly contested questions in early Ottoman history. As Reşat Barış Ünlü correctly stated in his dissertation, historians before that time argued either for Byzantine-Roman influence as a driving force behind the early Ottoman success or for the importance of Turco-Muslim traditions that allowed them to emerge as a frontier force.23 But Wittek’s controversial gaza thesis opened up a new way to understand both Ottoman history and gaza that split subsequent generations of historians into two camps: those who saw gaza as a socio-economic tool and those who saw gaza as a discursive device. Historians of the first camp tried to find traces of gaza in the social reality

22 Paul Wittek, The rise of the Ottoman empire (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1938). 23 Reşat Barış Ünlü, “The Genealogy of a World-empire: The Ottomans in World History”, (PhD diss., Binghampton University, 2008), 6.

20 of the time, without paying much attention to how it was used discursively in Ottoman texts.

George Arnakis, for example, equated gaza with “religious fanaticism”. From this narrow definition of gaza, he then turned to contemporary Greek sources, which he argued showed no instances of Ottoman religious fanaticism –concluding that Wittek’s thesis was therefore false. 24

Halil Inalcik, meanwhile, offered a less orthodox and more contextual definition of gaza. While agreeing with Wittek on its importance for the Ottomans, he defined it as a pragmatic business venture instead of a holy war conducted by zealots. Besides gaza, he also pointed out the importance of Turco-Mongol migrations that created a Turkic flow in Anatolia.25 More recently,

Rudi Paul Lindner in his Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia presented an alternative framework. According to him, the motivation behind the Ottomans was not gaza based on religion, but rather a shared interest in a tribal structure.26 While his argument seems to be closer to Halil Inalcik’s flexible definition of gaza, he replaced Inalcik’s gazis with members of an inclusive tribal organization who do not necessarily have blood ties or dedication to a common religion. Lindner emphasized the flexibility and pragmatism of the early Ottoman venture by rejecting the importance of gaza, which he considered a construct of later imperial ideology.27

However, he still shared with Wittek a concern for social structural aspects that could be used to explain the early success of the Ottoman state.

Despite their disagreements, all the above historians thought of gaza first and foremost as a socio-economic tool. By contrast, Cemal Kafadar’s book Between Two Worlds: The

24 Reşat Barış Ünlü, “The Genealogy of a World-empire”, 8. 25 Halil Iṅ alcık, The Ottoman Empire; the classical age, 1300-1600 (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973). 26 Rudi Paul Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in medieval Anatolia (Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1983), 34-35. 27 Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in medieval Anatolia, 35.

Construction of the Early Ottoman State should be considered the first work in the second camp, where gaza began to be thought as a discursive tool reflected in the texts. His work re-defined gaza and placed it into the context of late medieval Anatolia without downgrading its importance. His most remarkable contribution to this debate was that for the first time he indicated how the socio-economic layer of reality was in some ways independant from the discursive and textual layer, and pointed out the contradictory nature of those two in a way that had not been seen earlier discussions of the gaza narrative.28 The following two quotes from his work are a good illustration of his argument:

“The literature produced by or among the gazis to glorify deeds did not find it contradictory to present their gazi protagonists in cooporation with Christians.”29

“The currently rather sharp boundaries that exist in Turkish studies between historical and literary-historical scholarship must be crossed in order to deal with some important questions that arise from the existence of this intricately interrelated body of narratives.”30

The final important contribution to the gaza debate came almost a decade after Kafadar with Heath Lowry’s book The Nature of the Early Ottoman State in 2003. Lowry criticized all existing historiography around the gaza thesis and its followers, including Kafadar. He dedicated the first four chapters of his book to review the debate and revisited the same sources introduced by Wittek to refute Wittek’s argument. What he offers is an alternative to gaza that portrays the early Ottoman state as a “Predatory Confederacy”, meaning a combination of frontier peoples which formed with active disregard for distinctions of ethnicity and religion. This multicultural

28 Kafadar, Between two worlds, 70. 29 Ibid, 70. 30 Ibid, 64.

22 structure allowed people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds to be included, and gave rise to the emergence of early Ottoman state.31

Whereas the idea of Kafadar to bridge the two layers of reality is significant for this essay, Lowry’s attempt to see the early Ottoman dynasty “primus inter pares”32 in the power vacuum of medieval Anatolia, and by no means unique in their social organization, is crucial as well. It cannot be neglected that there were specific reasons that could explain the emergence of the Ottoman Empire. However, in the spirit of the expression “Rome was not built in a day”, this transformation cannot only be linked to the distinctive features of the early Ottomans. Lowry’s approach which defines the Ottoman family as but one of “the three great warrior families of

Bithynia”, -the other two of which were of non-Muslim origin, yet all of which were engaged in

“gaza” in northwestern Anatolia, is helpful both to remember the gradual aspect of the formation of the Ottoman Empire and to enlarge the definition of gaza. For the present study, this approach will be used as a tool to assess the role of Muslim seamen in the Mediterranean that has strong parallels with the role of the early Ottomans in the medieval Anatolia.33

III- Towards a Centralized State: How to Deal with Gaza Tradition

Before moving forward from medieval Anatolia to the early modern Mediterranean in the footsteps of gaza, I will delve more deeply into the approach of defining the early Ottomans as

31 Lowry, The nature of the early Ottoman state, 56-58 32 Even if “primus” technically means only one person, I use the term in reference to groups of people independent of an absolute authority. Although correct Latin version would have to be “primi inter pares” I will follow the pattern which is used by Donald Quataert in Donald Quataert, "Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes Towards the Notion of “Decline”," History Compass 1 (2003): 4. 33 Lowry, The nature of the early Ottoman state, 59. “This raises the possibility that in the fourteenth century there were three great warrior families in Bithynia, not four as stated by Spandugnino. One of these was Muslim (Osman) and two were Christian in origin (Mihal and Evrenos).”

“primus inter pares” who were seeking possible alliances and the reflections of this approach in the gaza narratives. As discussed above, gaza underwent three important changes when it was adopted by Anatolian population that was both ethnically and religiously mixed: a linguistic change, a change in the profile of non-Muslims, and a change in the role of converts. The linguistic change allowed the gaza narratives to be told among the Turcophones and written down in Turkish. However, neither the producers of the narratives, nor the characters, nor even the audience of the stories and texts were exclusively ethnically Turkish. In his gazavatname written for Mihaloğlu Ali Bey, the son of Köse Mihal, the fifteenth century Ottoman poet Suzi

Çelebi gives the perfect example of a gaza narrative that was written for a member of a family who had non-Muslim and non-Ottoman origins.34 The imperial order giving a sanjak (province) to the sons of Gazi Ali Bey issued by Bayezid II (d.1403) also showed how the early Ottomans accepted the existence of other gazi families of non-Muslim and non-Turkish origin and made alliances with them.35 In this first stage of the gaza tradition in Anatolia, the stories were told and written down in a power vacuum, in which many gazi families (both Turkic such as Aydın and

Menteşe and Greek such as Mihail and Evrenos) existed and co-operated without any of them achieving authority over the others.36

In this competitive environment, it was equally common for families to seek alliances not only with one another, but also with a Sufi order. The integration of mystical elements into gaza fed the polyphony of gaza narratives, bringing together gazi warriors fighting against infidels,

34 Agâh Sırrı Levend and 'Ali Bey Mihaloǧlu, Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloǧlu Ali Bey'in Ġazavāt-nāmesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1956). 35 Lowry, The nature of the early Ottoman state, 62. 36 Linda T. Darling, "Contested Territory: Ottoman Holy War in Comparative Context". Studia Islamica 91 (2000): 133-163.

24 soldiers of fortune motivated only by the prospect of booty, converts who joined the party, and dervishes who spiritually backed gazis. An example of this is the mystic Sheikh Edebali, referred to the sources as a dervish who accompanied Osman, the founder of the Ottoman dynasty.

According to Kafadar, this gazi/dervish synthesis created “contradictory values” in the frontier:

“on the one hand, living one’s life according to high ideals that may demand self-sacrifice; and on the other, the pursuit of wealth and glory”.37 However, the wealth and glory here have communal connotations instead of personal ones for medieval gazis. Their version of wealth and glory was rather related to sharing the booty with the other gazis and the community through a sense of fellowship that required reciprocity. This is different from an imperial display of pomp which is made with a condescending sense of favour and mercy. Therefore, it is rather the question of how to dispose of wealth than how to monopolize it that gives a spiritual valence to a material gain.38

If the material and spiritual could be successfully reconciled in that early period, however, with the rise of the centralized Ottoman state at the end of the fourteenth century later, the coexistence of contradictory values became more fraught. The emphasis and respect for the dervishes in the Anatolian gaza tradition later created a class of Sufi writers/advisors who would become the early Ottoman chroniclers and mentors of the Sultan, such as Aksemseddin who served in the court of Mehmet II in the mid-fifteenth century. In a revealing letter written by

Aksemseddin to Mehmed II, he blamed gazis for setbacks during the siege of Constantinople,

37 Kafadar, Between two worlds, 87. 38 Kafadar here explains it well “As long as one knew where to give priority to the right drive, and as long as one knew how to dispose (emphasis mine) of wealth (through charity, hospitality, gift giving, appropriate ostentatious display, etc.), wealth was not just acceptable but even incumbent upon anyone who wanted to achieve prominence and good repute as a champion of the faith,” p.87.

25 writing: “You know well that fewer than a few among them are ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of God, but as soon as they see booty they are ready to walk into fire for the sake of this world.”39

The key to understanding such denunciations of the gazis on the part of their erstwhile allies lies in the transformation of the Ottoman state. The turning point in this polyvocal phase of gaza was the moment, beginning at the end of the fourteenth century, when the successors of

Osman claimed to be more than “primus inter pares” warriors who fought alongside the other fellow gazis.40 Even if these attempts were temporarily undermined by the ambitions of Timur to restore the Mongol unity, the power vacuum in Anatolia left after Timur’s death deepened the antagonism between the Ottomans and their gazi neighbors. The reign of Mehmed II, who ended the Byzantine Empire with the conquest of Constantinople, was the point of no return, when even the pretense of a “primus inter pares” status for the Ottoman sultan came to an end. The growing idea of central authority alarmed the dervish/gazi warriors, who had enjoyed autonomy in the lack of a strong ruler, and had acted as freelancers who were open to co-operate with other rulers. The work of Aşıkpaşazâde, a Sufi chronicler of the fifteenth century who personally engaged in gaza gave voice to this clash between the imperial tendencies of Mehmed II and the leading families of Anatolia who were the followers of dervish/gazi tradition.41 From this point on, as Kafadar concludes, “the gaza spirit was subjected to a more orthodox interpretation after the taste of emerging settled Sunni administrators”.42 Mehmed II’s ambitious policies towards that end went so far as to claim to be the Caesar of the Roman Empire, and in the sixteenth

39 Kafadar, Between two worlds, 87-88. 40 Ibid, 143. 41 Ibid, 86. 42 Ibid, 145.

26 century similar tendencies would coalesce in Sunnitization attempts of Selim I and his successors

Suleiman I (the Magnificent) and Selim II. This period in which gaza tradition was arguably shaped in a more orthodox environment coincided with expansion of the scope of gaza tradition beyond Anatolia. The Mediterranean Sea which was a new context for Ottoman expansion would be a new scene for the re-production of a maritime version of Anatolian gaza activities. Here, despite being contemporary with the period of imperial centralization within the Ottoman Empire itself, the Mediterranean gaza preserved something of the ethos of the medieval Anatolian gaza.

IV- Migration of Gaza from Land to Sea

The tradition of defining the Muslim seamen as sea gazis and their activities as “sea gaza” (ġuzat fi’l-bahr)43 started in the Mediterranean before the Ottomans had access to it. The medieval maritime principalities such as Aydın, Menteşe, Karasi and Saruhan were the first whose activities in the Aegean Sea could be considered as gaza in the Mediterranean.44 The difference of those principalities from the other land-based gazi principalities was that they organized the gazi Turcoman warriors in the Aegean coast for the sea raids against non-Muslims.

As the medieval Anatolian gaza activities discussed above, these sea raids were also organized around a “primus inter pares” leader, and included not only Muslims but also the Orthodox

Greeks and converts, such as Melik Bey who was the son of the Byzantine ruler of Gallipoli who converted to Islam.45 Over time, the back-and-forth raids of the Turcoman maritime principalities

43 Halil Inalcik, “Bati Anadolu’da Yukselen Denizci Gazi Beylikleri, Bizanslilar ve Haclilar” in Başlangıçtan XVII. Yüzyıln Sonuna kadar Türk Denizcilik Tarihi, Eds. Idris Bostan and Salih Ozbaran, (Istanbul: Deniz Kuvvetleri Basımevi, 2009), 31. 44 Molly Greene, “The Ottomans in the Mediterranean”, in The early modern Ottomans: remapping the Empire, eds. Virginia H. Aksan, and Daniel Goffman (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 104. 45 Inalcik, “Bati Anadolu’da Yukselen Denizci Gazi Beylikleri, Bizanslilar ve Haclilar”, 31-43. In his remarkable work on the world map on Piri Reis, Svat Soucek also explains how it is common to describe the seamen as gazis in the

27 on the one hand, and the maritime republics of Genoa, and Venice, and the Knights of Rhodes on the other, transformed the islands of the Aegean Sea into a battleground where territories were always changing hands and –in a manner very similar to Anatolia in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries- no one could achieve absolute authority.46 Then, when the sea gazis of those maritime principalities later joined the Ottomans in the fifteenth century and formed the basis of the

Ottoman navy, the gaza ethos that they carried to the sea took root in the Ottoman narratives about the Mediterranean. In this sense, the power vacuum in the Mediterranean of the sixteenth century was a perfect ground for gaza to flourish as a socio-military practice. But it was also the perfect ground for it to flourish as a textual practice, with new places, characters and villains to fit into the familiar patterns of a gazi narrative.

The Ottoman advancements in the Aegean Sea in the fifteenth century paved the way for this new era of gaza. During the reign of Mehmed II, the main objective of the Ottoman navy was the conquests of the Aegean islands in order to secure a safer route to the Mediterranean.47

The series of conquests initiated by Mehmed II helped the earlier sailor/gazis who were now the backbone of the Ottoman navy to have a safer base in the Aegean Islands and also brought new sailors into the fold. After the conquest of Lesbos in 1462, a decree (emr-i şerîf) was issued by

Sultan Mehmed II allowing people who joined the conquest to settle in and get married with local women.48 The importance of this process to the subsequent unfolding of Mediterranean

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. See Svatopluk Soucek, Piri Reis & Turkish mapmaking after Columbus: the Khalili portolan atlas (London: Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 1996). 46 Greene, “The Ottomans in the Mediterranean”, 105. 47 Kate Fleet, “The Ottomans, 1451–1603: A political history introduction” in The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 2: The Ottoman Empire as a World Power, 1453–1603, eds. Kate Fleet and Sureiya Faroqhi. 22-25. 48 Murādı,̄ and Mustafa Yıldız, Ġazavāt-i H̲ayreddın̄ Pasa̧ : (MS 2639 Universitätsbibliothek Istanbul, kommentierte Edition mit deutsche Zusammenfassung. Aachen: Shaker, 1993), 47 and Tevarih, (catalogued as Cihad-name, (MS.Add. 24958 The British Library).

28 gaza can be seen in the early family history of the famous seafaring brothers Oruç Re’is and

Hızır Re’is (known as the “Barbarossa Brothers” in the West, whose origins and careers as gazis are related in the GHP, of the three main sources for this thesis). Oruc and Hizir were born from a marriage allowed by the abovementioned decree in Lesbos. Their father Ya’kub Ağa,49 was a warrior from Yenice-i Vardar, an Ottoman town close to Thessalonica, who was settled in

Lesbos after the conquest of the island. Their mother was a local woman who gave birth to four sons, İshak, Oruç, Hızır (whose alias Hayreddin means the “the best of one’s religion”) and

Ilyas.50 Among the brothers, Oruç and Hayreddin were especially fond of maritime activities

(re’islige heves eylemis idi) and became re’is (captain) of their own ships.51

These two brothers, Oruç and Hızır, set sail in the Aegean coast with their humble ships and gradually gained a reputation as “Muslim corsairs,” especially after raids to the distant North

African coast. The sui generis conditions of the Mediterranean in the sixteenth century where there was no imperial hegemony left the region a world of a freelancer sailors known as corsairs, a term specific to the Mediterranean. The term corso (cursus in Latin meaning “sea voyage”) was identified with the practices of the Hospitaller Knights based in Rhodes and later Malta.

Even if this rule is defined as an “état-corsair” that has its own legal structure, corsair in fact has

49Ağa is an official title in the Ottoman palace and provincial administration indicating that the person is in the service of the government. IA, “Ağa”. 50 Son of a sipahi soldier (sipahi zade) according to the author. Yenice-i Vardar was a town in the Balkans founded by “Gazi” Evrenos Bey. According to the tahrir population registers of the town for year 925 (1519), the overwhelming majority of the households were Muslims. Besides this, there is no information to conclude that Ya’kub Ağa was a convert or not. Even if Braudel defines Oruç Re’is and Hızır Re’is (as Barbarossa Brothers) as converts and Molly Greene as of Greek origin, the contemporary sources indicate that his father was a Muslim transferred to Lesbos from Yenice-I Vardar according to the Ottoman settlement policies and his mother was a local (Greek) woman. Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1995), 116. Molly Greene, “The Ottomans in the Mediterranean”, 106. 51 GHP, 47.

29 a broader meaning beyond the limits of a state but still constrained by certain limits of legitimized violence.52 The corsair, different from the pirate, usually seeks the patronage of a land-based ruler and tends to exercise violence with this ruler’s acquiescence. Especially during times of war, it was common for corsairs to campaign alongside the naval forces of their sponsoring state, a practice known as privateering.53 Molly Greene explains this common practice as a general phenomenon of the early modern period: “With limited fiscal resources, early modern states turned to seafarers, both pirates and others, to fight on their behalf during times of war.”54 In a world where it was not clear if the people were classified based on their religion or the status of subjecthood, which side they joined seem to depend not only on their religion but also on the balance of power between the states.55 Even if this feature separates the corsairs from pirates, however, the activities that they engage in apart from war recall the practices of ordinary pirates, including raiding ships and the taking of captives. This allows

Greene to place them somewhere between pirates and privateers in terms of their spectrum of practices.56

Oruç and Hızır can thus be defined as “Muslim corsairs”. In their first years at sea, the main activity that they engaged in was simple: setting sail for the Christian shores. At first sight, this might allow us to imagine them as romantic adventurers who accepted whatever comes from

52 Molly Greene, Catholic pirates and Greek merchants: a maritime history of the Mediterranean (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2010), 53. 53 GHP, 87. 54 Greene, Catholic pirates and Greek merchants: a maritime history of the Mediterranean, 53. 55 Molly Greene’s remarkable book The Catholic Pirates and Greek Merchants discusses this ambiguity with the example of Greek merchants who were the victims of Catholic piracy as Ottoman subjects in the seventeenth century. Despite this example, Green does not quickly conclude that what mattered was being subjects of sovereign, instead she offers a balanced view by accepting that there was “a kind of permanent war between Christianity and Islam” in the Mediterranean, pp. 9 and 53. 56 Ibid, 53.

30 the sea. But a closer look at their activities shows how they united the medieval Anatolian gaza practices discussed above with the early modern corsair tradition of the Mediterranean. The most important sources for this are various gazavatname texts that narrate the activities of Oruç and

Hızır in the Mediterranean as gaza. These texts were composed towards the end of Hayreddin’s life, after his brother’s death and when he himself had risen to be admiral of the Ottoman navy.

These texts are the most important sources that show the details of the life of Oruç and Hızır in a biographical manner, the practices of Muslim corsairs in the Mediterranean, and finally the voyage of the gaza tradition from medieval Anatolia to the early modern Mediterranean world.

Oruç was the elder of the two, and the first to choose to be a captain sailor (re’is). He was followed by Ilyas and later Hızır and they began to set sail for his first destination, the hometown of their father, Salonika and Euboea Island for trade. Initially, they practiced trade (ticaret) in a limited world of Aegean islands, a region that was relatively safer than the rest of the

Mediterranean sea.57 Even if Hızır was fond of those voyages, his brothers Ilyas and Oruç were determined to go to further afield to Tripoli and they set sail without Hızır, who stayed in

Lesbos.58 During this voyage, the brothers encountered a Rhodesian ship and in the encounter with this ship Ilyas was killed and Oruç was taken captive. Hızır was then drawn into an attempt to rescue his brother, and it was at this point that he became a part of the larger Mediterranean corsair tradition. Hızır hired an infidel (kafir) to find the captain who held Oruc captive and offer

57 GHP, 47, The author here abstains from referring them as gazi when he narrates the earlier parts of their career. He prefers re’is (captain) instead. 58 Ibid, 47. “Hasılı ol taraflarun seferi Hayreddin Re’ise gayet hoş gelürdi amma Oruç Re’is karındaşı İlyası ma’an beraber alub muradları ol sefer Şam Tarablusuna togru gitmek idi.”

31 him money for the redemption of his brother. The infidel that he hired did not keep his word, but luckily Oruç managed to escape by himself.59

After this episode, the two brothers’ limited vision of trade between the Aegean islands was expanded, eventually to the shores of the eastern Mediterranean. The ruler of Mamluk

Egypt, who had heard of the heroic fights of Oruc, hired him as the admiral (donanma üzerine ser-i ‘asker) for his campaign to the Indian Ocean. During the preparations of the campaign,

Oruç’s fleet was raided and he took shelter in Antalya, a port city in southern Anatolia.60 When

Oruç was in Antalya, he encountered the treasurer of one of the sons (şehzade) of the Ottoman sultan Bayezid II (r.1481-1512), named Piyale Bey.61 The importance of this encounter and later relations between Oruç and Prince Korkud are connected to the internal dynamics of the

Ottoman dynasty. The reigning Ottoman sultan, Bayezid II, had previously appointed Korkud, one of his four sons, as the governor of Manisa, a favored posting that indicated he was a favorite to become the next sultan. Manisa was close to the Aegean, and Korkud had become powerful in part through his maritime ties and his patronage of sea gazis. His stature eventually grew to the point that Bayezid II became alarmed, and re-appointed him to Antalya, a more remote and less wealthy assignment.62 When Oruç encountered Piyale Bey in Antalya, Prince Korkud was still the governor of Manisa, and given Korkud’s history of ties with the Aegean sea gazis, it is probable that Oruç had started to think about an alliance with Prince Korkud or vice versa long before Korkud was transferred to Antalya. In fact, his meeting there with Piyale Bey was not the

59 GHP, 52-53. 60 Ibid, 54. 61 Ibid, 55. 62 Nabil Al-Tikriti, "The as Justifiable Self-Exile: Şehzade Korkud's Wasıl̄at al- (915-916/1509-1510)," Al-Masaq: Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean 17 (2005): 125-146.

32 first time he encountered him as the GHP indicates: “At that time Sultan Korkud was appointed as ruler of Manisa but he had a treasurer named Piyale Bey. Oruc Re’is had already given him a

Christian boy (firenk oglanı)63 and they had been friends before.”64

Oruç contacted and later met with Prince Korkud via Piyale Bey and managed to restore his ship and crew under the patronage of Korkud. With orders to “go to the Western Christian shores and practice corsair activities there”65 he and his brother waged war (cenk) against infidels

(kâfir). Their main goal was the taking of captives especially Rhodesians under the rule of the

Hospitaller Knights and Venetians, whom they sold into slavery, ransomed, or exchanged in return for the Muslim captives. A secondary objective of their raids were the Venetian ships carrying grains, whose cargo they shared with the inhabitants of their patron Korkud’s territories.

The terms used to describe these raiding activities is worth mentioning here. In the GHP, they were referred to neither as “corsairing” nor as gaza.66 The first appearance of the term gaza comes only after Prince Korkud advised Oruç to go to the West. From then on, all the activities that two brothers engaged in were referred as gaza.67

63 The term frenk in the Ottoman sense does not necessarily refer to Franks. They used the term in a broader sense meaning the Western Christians. “Frenk became the common denominator referring to Western European Christians in Ottoman parlance.” Arda Eksigil, “Ottoman Visions of the West (15th-17th Centuries)” (unpublished MA thesis, History and Classical Studies, McGill University, 2014). 64 GHP, 55. The original quotation: “Oruç Re’is ana evvel bir firenk oglanı bagışlamış idi, hısbeten li-illâh dostlaşurlar idi.” 65 Ibid, 56. “Frengistan tarafına gidüb anda korsanlık idesiz”. 66 Ibid, 54.He also refrains using the term ‘corsair’ for them. He only uses it when someone else uses for them, According to the source, corsair (korsan) is mostly being used by non-Muslims to define Muslim gazi-seamen with the exception of Prince Korkud. “Âhir-i kâr kâfirler Rodosa varub başlarına hâsır yakub eytdiler: “Sinyor nâr-ı nûr patraman yandoloz devletinde lâyık-ı insâf mıdur aslı buradan kurtulma Oruç Re’is nâmında forsata korsan (emphasis mine) zuhûr eylemiş, altında on sekiz oturak bir teknesi var şöyle ki uçar kuşa hükm ider ilimiz memleketimüz ihrâk-ı bi’n-nâr eyleyüb nice oğullarımızı uşaklarımuzı teknesine toldurub götürüb Şam Tarablusuna satdı.” 67 Ibid, 56. “Gazaya teveccüh edip.”

During this early period of tranquility, it should also be remembered that the two brothers were under the patronage of both Prince Korkud and the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, until the

Ottoman ruler Selim I acceded to the throne in 1512. Selim’s accession led to the execution of

Prince Korkud, his rival, and shortly thereafter, to the invasion and destruction of the Mamluk

Sultanate. Selim’s rise thus left Oruç and Hızır without a patron, and on far from friendly terms with the new Ottoman sultan. So they turned for support to the Hafsid ruler of Tunisia

Muhammad IV (1494–1526). Under his patronage, they continued to engage in raids and prisoner exchanges for some time, but were eventually betrayed by him. So in 1516, they left

North Africa and joined the navy of Selim I as it prepared for the invasion of Egypt, whose ruler was also one of their former patrons. Then, strengthened by their alliance with the Ottoman state, they returned to the North African coast and took control of the port cities and fortresses of

Algeria. From here, they ruled an independent and highly successful Turkish ètat-corsair for more than a decade. Due to the location of their new base which was close to the Spanish shores, it was hard to assure the control over there and they dealt with the Spanish assaults provoked by the former ruler of the Kingdom of Tlemcen (Tilemsen).68 During one of those attempts by the

Spanish, Oruç died and left his brother the sole ruler. Finally, in 1533, Hızır (from this point on, he is only referred with his alias Hayreddin) was called to Istanbul and given direct command of the entire Ottoman navy as Grand Admiral (kapudan-i derya or kapudan paşa) by the reigning sultan Suleyman II, the son of Selim I.

V- From Turcoman Warriors of Anatolia to Muslim Corsairs of Mediterranean

68 GHP, 101. Tlemcen is a town in Algeria.

In the year 1533, Andrea Doria, the famed admiral of the Spanish navy, was being held as a captive in Algiers, and witnessed the arrival there of an Ottoman official who was to offer

Hayreddin his new position and bring him to Istanbul. According to GHP, after Doria was ransomed and released he met the Spanish King and said “there must be no reason behind this call but appointing him as general (ceneral). He may cause us some problems because he knows our shores (kosta) like the back of his hand. But it is not his cup of tea to attack with a huge navy.”69

Doria was right in his prediction, because the Ottoman Sultan Suleyman II did indeed appoint him as Grand Admiral of the Ottoman naval forces, an appointment that carried the rank of “paşa” (the Turkish equivalent of “general”). But this appointment not only proved that Doria hit the mark, but also suggests that he was not the only person who questioned Hayreddin’s suitability for such rank, given his background as a freelance corsair. In fact, the GHP tells of a group of people in the imperial palace in Istanbul who disliked Hayreddin, were always trying to disgrace him and have him deposed.70 The answer to the question of why they disliked him is related to the early practices of Oruç and Hızır, practices that recall those of medieval gazi warriors who were also disliked by the central Ottoman government of Mehmed II as explained above.

For almost thirty years, from the brothers’ early years as freelancer seamen until

Hayreddin became part of the Ottoman ruling elite, both the activities that they engaged in and

69 GHP, 194. “Zirâ benüm fehmüm oldur ki Kıran Sinyor Barboroşoyı Âsitâneye da’vet itmesinden mutlak murâd-I maksudı ceneral itmekdür. Eger ceneral olursa belki bir mikdâr bizlere zahmet vire, zirâ niçün deryâ umûrın geregi gibi bildügünden mâ’adâ bu bizüm İspanya kostaların kendü evi gibi bilür, agır donanma ile bu semtlere gelmek Barboroşoya göre bir şey degildür.” 70 Ibid, 222-223.

35 the alliances they forged remind us of the gazi warrior tradition of medieval Anatolia. This is not a coincidence, in that the Mediterranean of the sixteenth century had certain similarities with the environment of medieval Anatolia that allowed the gaza tradition to safely travel there. The

Mediterranean world, in which religious attachments were attenuated by other kinds of affiliations represented a perfect alternative to medieval Anatolia, and the two brothers defined as “primus inter pares” among the other freelance Muslim corsairs appear as neo-frontier lords much like the early Ottomans.71 The two worlds will be thoroughly compared here to understand how gaza rhetoric transferred to the Mediterranean and was adopted in the narratives about corsairs.

Let us begin by discussion why it is plausible to define Oruç and Hızır as “primus inter pares”. Even if Oruç and Hızır emerge from both the GHP and Tevarih as the main protagonists of the story, much like the characters in the medieval gazi narratives such as Melik Danişmend,

Battal Gazi or Osman Bey, they had a crew of fellow corsairs. Those corsairs were simply referred as gazis in the narratives and were characterized as companions who could talk and discuss with the captains and share the booty.72 In some cases, they emerge as distinct characters in the narrative, such as Deli Mehemmed (Mehemmed the Mad) and Yahya Re’is, further affirming the similarities of between egalitarian gazi milieu of the Mediterranean and that of

Anatolia. Whereas Yahya Re’is appears as the companion of Oruç, Deli Mehemmed was a captain who was a former member of Hızır’s crew, but later went on to engage in gaza activities

71 Rhoads Murphey, "Seyyid Muradi’s Prose Biography of Hizir Ibn Yakub, Alias Hayreddin Barbarossa: Ottoman Folk Narrative as an Under-Exploited Source for Historical Reconstruction” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 54, no. 4 (2001): 519-32. 72 GHP, 68-69.

36 with his own ship.73 The sources also acknowledge the existence of other Muslim ships operating independently in the Mediterranean, for instance in an encounter in which Hızır mistook a

Muslim ship for an infidel one.74

These instances allow me to conclude that just as the early Ottomans, who shared the status of gazi and mastery over gaza with other families in an egalitarian frontier milieu, Hızır and Oruç also did not have a monopoly over their raiding activities at sea, and needed the help of other fellow gazis. They were thus heirs of the tradition of the maritime Turcoman principalities who operated in Aegean Sea against the Venetians in the fourteenth century. In Dusturname, which recounts the exploits of these early sea gazis, the author Enveri describes the crew of

Aydinoglu Umur Bey as azebs. According to Greene these azebs were volunteers with no particular maritime training, thereby resembling the gazis on land.75

Besides operating as “primus inter pares” like the early Ottomans, the dizzying instability of the alliances that the corsair gazis engaged in also presents an important parallel with medieval Anatolia. Until they secured their independent state in Algeria, Oruç and Hızır flowed from one alliance to another in order to operate safely, just like the early Ottomans who also benefited from shifting alliances with other gazi principalities and even with Byzantines in the period before they had established their own hegemony.

All of this being said, there is at least one outstanding difference between two gazi traditions related to the role of religious conversion. The emphasis on “mixed-blood” converts, or children of converts, among the main gazi characters, which is a prominent feature of

73 GHP, 62-63 74 GHP, 118. 75 IA, Idris Bostan “Azeb” and Molly Greene, “The Ottomans in the Mediterranean”, 106.

37 medieval gaza texts, is missing in the gaza narratives of Mediterranean.76 These do not include any converted characters and they make no reference to any incidence of conversion at any point during their narrative. This is very surprising since it was recently proven by Giancarlo Casale, in his article about the ethnic composition of Ottoman ship crews, that conversion was in fact a prevalent part of life at sea, and that a high proportion of Ottoman ship crews were converts.77

This stark contrast between the gaza tradition of the early modern period and that of medieval period opens a discussion about the social environment in which the sources were constructed.

The early modern Mediterranean gaza narratives are generally thought to be the products of a self-consciously Sunni orthodox Ottoman court culture.78 Yet, as we have seen, many elements of these narratives shows clear continuities with the medieval gaza ethos rather representing a strong imperial culture. The absence of conversion in the Mediterranean gaza narratives, however, is one area where the new orthodox Sunni imprint of the Ottoman court does seem to have had an effect. Thus, having both continuities with the medieval Anatolian gaza tradition and instances of a more conservative, orthodox view, the Mediterranean gazavatnames forces us to reconsider the strict division between the medieval/heterodox

Anatolian gaza narratives that include dervishes and converts and early modern/Orthodox

Ottoman gaza narratives that only reflect the perspective of a strong, centralized ruler who used the concept of “gaza” only for self-aggrandizement.

The expectation among scholars of such a strict division may explain why the early modern gazavatnames have so far been excluded from the long-standing debate over Wittek’s

76 For the discussion on the importance of mixed-blood in medieval Anatolian texts, see Kafadar, p.82. 77 Giancarlo Casale, "The Ethnic Composition of Ottoman Ship Crews and the "Rumi Challenge" to Portuguese Identity" Medieval Encounters 13 (2007): 122-144. 78 Kafadar, Between two worlds, 83.

“Gazi Thesis”, which has instead concentrated exclusively on sources from the late medieval

Anatolia. While it is definitely true that the early modern Ottoman texts related to gaza were different from the late medieval texts, the formation of an orthodox Ottoman court culture was a gradual process that allowed the production of ambiguous, polyvocal texts in which the influences of medieval discourse could survive. Moreover, storytelling traditions, be they written or oral, do not instantly change according to the whims of the state. Despite the existence of an imperial ideology that, -starting from the late fourteenth century, sought to expel the gazi/dervish tradition from its core, people’s mental world did not follow it blindly. This allowed writers from the following centuries to continue producing texts with a medieval gaza spirit. Specifically how the writers of the early modern period were able to follow the way of late medieval texts in terms of their interpretation of gaza will be the main question of the second part of this thesis.

Another important point to be discussed in the second part is the transitive nature of the term gaza. The medieval corpus characterised by a heterodox use of gaza was a suitable historic past for the early modern writer who tried to find a legitimate ground to tell his stories in a new region, the sea, with a new cast of heroes, the seamen; and against a new kind of villain, the

Catholics. But for modern scholars, what has stood out most about the medieval gaza narratives was their apparently ambiguous use of gaza, and specifically the inconsistent behaviour of gazis who were ostensibly holy warriors towards non-Muslims. From a modern perspective, what strikes us most about these narratives is not simply the frequency of alliances with non-Muslims or episodes of co-operation, but the extent to which the authors of these gaza narratives seem to have found such episodes unproblematic, and never restrained themselves from including them.79

79 Kafadar, Between two worlds, 82-84.

This leads the historian to conclude that gaza was adopted by the warriors of medieval Anatolia in a flexible and heterodox sense, and certainly not in the sense of “holy war” as we might understand it today.

Yet just like their European counterparts who according to Robert Schwobel “drew heavily on the medieval corpus dealing with Islam and the Levant” in order to make sense of the early modern Ottomans, the Ottomans themselves of the early modern period adopted the medieval sense of gaza to deal with the changing conditions of their own day.80 As a result,

Ottomans writers did not conceal necessary contacts with the infidel. But at the same time, they tended to follow the perspective of conflict embodied in gaza, and to accept it as the general frame for all other types of interraction.

This is quite far from the perspective of many modern scholars, such as the Hungarian

Turcologist Gyula Kaldy-Nagy. According to Heath Lowry, who summarizes Kaldy-Nagy’s work, “there simply was no struggle between Christianity and Islam in the early Ottoman period”.81 Whether this assertion is correct or not is a question that this thesis cannot answer. We are now in the centennial of a debate which started in 1916 over whether co-existence or conflict can best explain the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims during the early history of the Ottoman state, and it appears that even a hundred years of scholarship is not enough to settle this question. But what we can conclude is that when it comes to the representation of this social reality in historical sources, the perspective of conflict was always favoured. In other words,

80 Kemal H. Karpat, The Ottoman state and its place in world history, (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 3. For a detailed analysis on the medieval visions of the Latins and Byzantines on Muslims, see Alexander D. Beihammer, “Christian Views of Islam in Early Seljuq Anatolia: Perceptions and Reaction” in Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia eds. A. C. S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola, and Sara Nur Yildiz, (Burlington, VT : Ashgate Publishing Company, 2015). 81 Lowry, The nature of the early Ottoman state, 10.

40 even if we accepted Kaldy-Nagy’s position that there was no actual religious conflict in medieval

Anatolia, we can be sure that the Ottoman authors who represented this history would not agree with him as their own writings show.

In his study of medieval gaza narratives, Cemal Kafadar warns the reader against exaggerating the will of Ottomans’ desire to cooperate with the non-Muslims.82 This warning should be rigorously repeated for the early modern period for two crucial reasons. The first is related to the rising paradigm of “romantic multiculturalism”, attributed to the early modern

Mediterranean world by a growing number of works about the region written in the last two decades. The second reason is the inseparability of experience and the narrative of that experience in order to grasp the social reality. Those two reasons will be problematized in the third part of the thesis, which take a look at two different historiographical approaches from different periods of modern scholarship.

PART II- The Voyage of Gaza as a Discourse

“We have to assume that the testimony of others is « evidence », partly because we have to begin everything somewhere, and this is where history begins, and partly because the consequence of doing otherwise is loss not merely of history, but of the independent reality of anything not present to the senses, which does not leave much of the world.”

Nancy Partner

82 Lowry, The nature of the early Ottoman state, 71.

I- Introduction

The argument presented in the first part of this thesis was twofold. First, I argued that the late medieval Anatolian warrior epics, either oral or written, tended to be gaza-centric. This characteristic, which is inherited from the earlier periods of Islam where the first incidents of encounters between Muslims and non-Muslims took place, had a remarkable impact on the

Anatolian story-telling tradition as adopted by various Turcoman principalities and finally the

Ottomans. Second, I argued that the transitive nature of gaza that allowed the stories of different characters in various contexts, and from different periods to be told in a recognizeable way that retained coherence over time. The question of why this storytelling concept endured was abided throughout centuries is a challenging one that would require a thorough analysis of every piece of gaza narrative ever written. Barring that, it is still possible to answer this question partially by analyzing certain targeted sources with a narrow geographic focus.

Here, it should be remembered that the primary aim of this thesis is to show how the

Ottomans adopted gaza concept to narrate the encounters with non-Muslims in a new environment: the Mediterranean. Crucially, this was a world accessed not through centrally organized naval campaigns, but rather the small-scale sea raids of independent Muslim corsairs.

While the conventional narrative of Ottoman history that describes the sixteenth century as a peak of central/imperial power, this feature of Mediterranean gaza raises questions about that narrative. As we have seen, traditional historiography ascribes the Ottomans’ definitive turn away from the “primus inter pares” model of medieval Anatolia to the reign of Sultan Mehmed II

(d.1481). The strongest basis for this interpretation is the fact that the medieval mindset of the

Anatolian dervish/gazis was in fact undermined in this period in both the socio-economic and textual layers of social reality. Both the elimination of gazi/dervish circles from the upper

42 echelons of the state, and the transformation of gaza narratives from collections of stories of the

Anatolian gazis to elugistic narratives of the Ottoman sultans, marked a twofold change in two spheres of social reality. However, the tradition initiated in the gazi/dervish milieux of Anatolia continued to exist in the Mediterranean where the Ottomans were only one of the actors that occupied its shores. The testimonies of this belated form of gaza are the texts related to the lives of the Muslim corsairs, Hizir and Oruc, who operated in the Mediterranean just as the independent medieval warlords of Anatolia. The eulogistic first praise biography, the “Gazâvât-ı

Hayreddin Paşa” (the GHP) was written by fellow Muslim seamen and a member of their crew, named Seyyid Muradi. Penned in the second half of the sixteenth century, slighly after

Hayreddin’s death, it is a precious record of the way that a marginalized medieval Anatolian tradition of both practicing gaza and of writing about gaza continued to exist in a changed environment, and during a period of history in which such texts were supposed to follow different conventions. Moreover, it can be useful paired with a second text, the “Tevârih-i

Hayreddin Paşa” (the Tevarih)83. This is another biography of Oruc and Hizir which is based on the GHP and follows the same basic plot, but was written by an Ottoman court historian of the early seventeenth century, and that in its choice of language reflects more closely the sensibilities and expenctations of the Ottoman center.

The GHP was chosen as the main focus of this chapter because it provides evidence for three main arguments of this thesis. First of all, apart from archival documents, it is the sole contemporary narrative about the encounters between Muslims and non-Muslims in the sixteenth

83 The title written in the original source is Tevarih-i Hayreddin Pasa. However, in the first page there is another title Cihadname with the name of the author Safi. Tevarih, p.1.

43 century Mediterranean that is written from an Ottoman perspective.84 Secondly, it is also the only source from this Mediterranean milieu that can be compared directly with the medieval

Anatolian warrior epics, because it is the last known example of texts that reflect the medieval heterodox gazi spirit in the more orthodox textual literary environment of the sixteenth century, which had come to be dominated by the Ottoman court.85 As such, it represents the last example of a gaza narrative told and written by gazis themselves from the field. For this reason, it is an important source to uncover the mobility of gaza as a literary tradition from Anatolia to the

Mediterranean, from the medieval era to the early modern, and finally from the field to the armchair.

II- Questions on the Authenticity of Sources

Agâh Sırrı Levend’s 1956 book “Gazavatnameler ve Mihailoglu Ali Bey’in

Gazavatnamesi” dated 1956 is the most far-reaching study ever made on gazavatname texts written in the Ottoman period.86 His study is composed of a detailed bibliography of gazavatnames, starting with the reign of Murad II (r.1421-1451) and ending with the reign of

Abdulmecid (r.1839-1861), and includes a fully-fledged analysis of one of the early

84 For the studies that relied on the archival documents, see Molly Greene, Catholic pirates and Greek merchants: a maritime history of the Mediterranean and A shared world: Christians and Muslims in the early modern Mediterranean; Eric Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople: nation, identity, and coexistence in the early modern Mediterranean, (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006); Natalie E. Rothman, Brokering empire trans-imperial subjects between Venice and Istanbul, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012) and Emrah Safa Gürkan, "Mediating Boundaries: Mediterranean Go-Betweens and Cross-Confessional Diplomacy in Constantinople, 1560-1600" Journal of Early Modern History 19 (2015): 107-128. 85 Even if it can be seen as the last example, it is not the only example written in the sixteenth century that also had the medieval spirit. Suzi Celebi’s Gazavat where he narrates gaza activities of Mihailoglu Ali Bey who is the grandson of Kose Mihal, former Byzantine tekfur and Osman Gazi’s friend, is another example of texts outside of the early modern gaza stream that tended to narrate the gazas of the Sultans and Pasas. 86 Agâh Sırrı Levend and 'Ali Bey Mihaloǧlu, Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloǧlu Ali Bey'in Ġazavāt-nāmesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1956).

44 gazavatname texts, written for the gazas of Mihailoglu Ali Bey by Suzi Çelebi in (d.1524).87

Unfortunately, since his classification is mainly based on the title of texts, the medieval

Anatolian warrior epics were not considered as examples of gazavatnames even if they referred to wars as gaza and to warriors as gazi. Instead, he included only the texts written in the Ottoman period that had certain genre-specific words in their titles: gazavatname (“Book of Gazas”) that narrates a chain of battles, raids and sieges against non-Muslims, gazaname (“Book of Gaza”) that narrates one specific episode of gaza, fetihname (“Book of Conquest”) that commemorates the conquest of a particular castle or city, and zafername (“Book of Victory”) that commemorates a particular victorious battle against non-Muslims.88 Besides the title, Levend further limited gazavatname genre by including only texts that narrate either the life of the

Ottoman Sultan or high ranking Ottoman official as gazi, or that commemorated an Ottoman victory or conquest as gaza.89 Since the medieval texts fell outside this definition, they were not included in Levend’s bibliography. However, the GHP which is included in Levend’s list, nevertheless has certain features that are in contradiction with his definition as well. Those features will be presented the pages below, and will address the questions of composition, characters, geography and language.

Before moving on to those specific features of the GHP, it is important to consider the authenticity of the text as a historical source. Questioning the authenticity of the GHP presents a particular challenge since there are today several different versions of the same text, variously bearing the titles Fetihnâme (“Book of Victory), Cihadnâme (“Book of Jihad”) or Tevârih (“The

87 The first known gazavatname written for an Ottoman Sultan was Gazavatname written for Murad II. Therefore, using the gaza concepts for the conquest of an Ottoman Sultan dates back to the early fifteenth century. 88 Levend, Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloǧlu Ali Bey'in Ġazavāt-nāmesi, 1. 89 Ibid, 4.

Histories”), and featuring some variations in their content, even as they follow the same basic storyline. In fact, when I began this study, I initially encountered so many different titles and authors that the task of understanding their mutual relationship seemed impossible. However, after a thorough investigation, I was able to determine that the GHP is the earliest example, and all other extant versions are in some manner based on it. In arriving at this conclusion, I made use of Hüseyin Yurdaydın’s early article about Seyyid Muradi’s works, Aldo Gallotta’s remarkable analysis of the GHP, and Agâh Sırrı Levend’s study, as well as direct consultation of various oriental manuscript catalogues in Turkey, as well as the British Museum and the

Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

In his above-mentioned bibliography, Agâh Sırrı Levend identifies a large number of different texts, including both histories (târih) and gazavatnames, related to the life of Oruç and

Hızır Re’is. These include, the Fetihnâme-i Hayreddin Paşa (“Book of Conquest of Hayredin

Pasha”) and the Feth-i Kalâ-i Nova (“Conquest of Nova Castle”) both by Muradi, the Gazavât-i

Hayreddin Pasa (“Book of Gaza of Hayreddin Pasha”), and Tarih-i Sakloş ve Estergon ve Istoni- i Belgrad (“History of Saklos and Estergon and Belgrad Istoni”) by Çavus Paşa, Lüccetu’l-

Ahyâr (“The High Seas of the Good”) by Yetim Ali Çelebi, Cihad-nâme (“Book of Jihad”) by

Safi, Ez Zuhretü’n- Neyyire90 (“The Storehouse of Illumination”) and Târih-i Cezâyir (“History of Algiers”) by Kastamonulu Huseyin b. Ali and Târih-i Hayreddin Paşa (“History of Hayreddin

Pasha”) by Muradi. His identification is based on various library catalogues such as Topkapı

Library, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, the Austrian State Archives, Istanbul University

Library, the Barberiniano Orientale, the British Museum and the National Archives of Egypt.

90 According to Levend’s list, this work is anonymous, p.75.

While this list is almost certainly not comprehensive, it gives an indication of just how many texts were composed about the exploits of Hayreddin, and how widespread their distribution actually was.

For the present study, I will rely primarily on the manuscript copy of the GHP, currently held in Istanbul University Library (IU.MS.no.2639). As a copy, it dates from h.1194 (1780 CE), with an available published version compiled by Mustafa Yıldız as his PhD dissertation.91 I also consult a second source for comparative purposes, the Tevarih (alternatively catalogued as

Cihad-name) written by Safi which held by the British Library (BL.MS.no.Add. 24958). While this source was definitely written after the original GHP, the extant copy is of an earlier date than the abovementioned copy of the GHP. Since the rest of the texts identified by Levend either cannot be located, were in collections not available for consultation, or lie beyond the time scope of this essay, my subsequent investigation will be limited to the GHP written by Muradi and the

Tevarih written by Safi.92

Whereas Tevarih has only one existing copy, the GHP has various copies with different dates, a total of at least fourteen in all. None, however, is the original version written by the author, but rather posthumous copies.93 This had given rise to a controversy over the text’s authorship, particularly since there are two different writing styles, one in prose and one in verse and there are two authors mentioned in the various catalogue entries: Çavuş Paşa and Muradi.

91 Murādı,̄ and Mustafa Yıldız, Ġazavāt-i H̲ayreddın̄ Pasa̧ : (MS 2639 Universitätsbibliothek Istanbul, kommentierte Edition mit deutsche Zusammenfassung. Aachen: Shaker, 1993) 92 Lüccetu’l-Ahyâr could not be found in any archives. Ez-zühretü’n-Neyyire is catalogued by Rieu for the British Museum in his catalogue, however it is an eighteenth-century source which beyond the time scope of this essay. 93 Aldo Gallotta, “Seyyid Murad’ın “Gazavat-ı Hayreddin Paşa” adlı eseri”, trans. by Mahmut H. Şakiroğlu, in Erdem Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Dergisi 4 (1988): 127-163. Gallotta argues that six of them cannot be considered as different copies because some of them are the same with another copy and some are summaries of GHP instead of being a full copy.

The GHP has been commonly attributed to Çavus Paşa, however this is controversial since it has many copies across the libraries and some of those copies include another name as author:

Muradi.

In his monumental work on Ottoman history composed in the early nineteenth sentury,

Hammer first noticed the existence of two different styles, and identified a historian named Sinan

Çavuş as the author of both versions of the GHP.94 Following Hammer, Sinan Çavuş was accepted as the sole author until 1911, when Necip Asım uncovered a text titled Gazavât-i

Hayreddin Paşa found in Topkapı Library and noted a poet named Muradi as its author.

Thereafter, historians began to attribute separate authorship to the two versions. Babinger did so in his authoritative bibliography of Ottoman historical texts. And Blochet did as well when he classified two copies found in the Bibliothèque Nationale, attributing the first copy (B.N sup.

Turc no.514) to Muradi and the second (BNF sup.Turc no.1186) to Tchaoush Pasha (Sinan

Çavuş).95

Subsequently, in a 1963 article, Hüseyin Yurdaydın claimed that all attributions to Sinan

Çavuş were false, and that Muradi was in fact the sole author of both texts. His analysis was based on manuscripts from Istanbul University library that include the note “Telif-i Seyyid

Muradi” –the work of Seyyid Muradi. According to him, a cross examination of the texts shows that all of them must have been written by the same person, who wrote under the pen-name

Muradi. He also notices that Muradi cannot be the pseudonym of Sinan Çavuş, since the author

95 Gallotta, “Seyyid Murad’ın “Gazavat-ı Hayreddin Paşa” adlı eseri”, 131.

48 makes use of the third person when speaking about Sinan Çavuş in the version of the GHP composed in rhyming verse.96

He further supported his claim by looking at the other works attributed to Muradi, and noticing that in one of these (titled Fetihnâme) he says the author claims that he has already written another work, that narrates the life of Hayreddin Pasha. Yurdaydın then compares these two texts and concludes that the Fetihnâme narrates some of the events that had already appeared in the GHP.97

Following Yurdaydın, the attribution of both versions of the GHP to Muradi was confirmed by Aldo Gallotta, who wrote the most full-fledged analysis on the subject in 1983.98

Gallotta was able to reconstruct the details of Muradi’s own biography for the first time by reading carefully all the works written by him. He concluded that the GHP, which is the most important work of naval history composed in the sixteenth century, was without question written by someone named Seyyid Murad who had many other works showing his expertise on both sailing and writing.99 His remarks on Seyyid Murad’s life are worth mentioning in more detail, since they are relevant to my later analysis of the text. According to Gallotta, Muradi was one of the sailors in Hayreddin’s crew, and had non-Muslim origins. His birth date is not known. His earliest known work is the Bâhirname (“Book of the Sea”) completed in 1524. Gallotta indicates

1534 as the year when he joined the Ottoman fleet (donanma-yı hümâyûn) under Hayreddin

Pasha.100 This provides a useful insight into how Muradi collected information about

96 Hüseyin Yurdaydın, “Muradi ve Eserleri”, in: Belleten 27 (Ankara 1963): 453-466. “Çünkü emrile Sinan’ı saldılar/Iki kadırganın emrin kıldılar/Yani donadub Sinan Çavuş ile/Virdiler destine emir bile”, p.458. 97 Yurdaydin, “Muradi ve Eserleri”, 463. 98 Gallotta, “Seyyid Murad’ın “Gazavat-ı Hayreddin Paşa” adlı eseri”, 127-163. 99 Ibid, 128. 100 Ibid, 138-139.

Hayreddin’s life when writing the GHP. In the IU version (published by Yıldız), he indicates that he witnessed some parts of the story personally, and heard about other details second hand. As far as the year 1534 was concerned, it is clear that he only witnessed the activities of Hayreddin

Pasha after he became the Grand Admiral of the Ottoman fleet (kaptan-ı deryâ). For the information before that point, he either wrote what he had directly heard from Hayreddin Pasha or from the other informants. Since there was no other written sources about Hayreddin Pasha before his text, there was no written sources available to him at that time.

Gallotta’s analysis showing that Muradi who was a member of Hayreddin Pasha’s crew is also crucial for speculating about the conditions under which the original text was written down.

Even if the original copy is no longer extant, an analysis of the available copies including the writing style, story, plot, and introductory and concluding remarks shows that they are variations of a single source which was the original text written by Muradi. Therefore, with its various copies, Muradi’s the GHP becomes the starting point of a tradition of storytelling about

Hayreddin Pasha and the Muslim corsairs of the Mediterranean.

Another biography, Tevarih attributed to the author Safi, demonstrates the extent to which the template established by Muradi was followed by later Ottoman writers. This text was first catalogued by Charles Rieu for the British Museum and according to the catalogue entry it was written in the seventeenth century.101 The author identifies himself as “Sâfi”, which is either a part of his name or a pen name like Muradi. However, as Rieu and Levend both agree, if he was the court historian Safi Mustafa Efendi (d.1616), this would date the text to the early

101 British Museum, and Charles Rieu. Catalogue of the Turkish manuscripts in the British museum, (1888).

50 seventeenth or possibly the very late sixteenth century.102 However, it might be written by another author who used the same pseudonym. The IA entry related to him does not list neither

Cihad-name nor Tevarih among Safi Mustafa Efendi’s works.103

Whether written by Safi Mustafa Efendi or not, the text itself makes clear that it was composed by an author who preferred the high literary language of the Ottoman court, but who nevertheless adhered closely to the plot of the GHP. Muradi’s GHP thus emerges as the genitive texts for Safi’s later work. With this in mind, let us now turn to a deeper discussion of the similarities and differences between the GHP and Tevarih.

III- The Composition of the GHP and Tevarih

The plot of gazavat consists of fifteen parts which are called “meclis”, a word meaning

“seated assembly” and indicating that the piece was meant to be read aloud in public.104 This was a tradition inherited from the oral warrior epics of Anatolia, and early written gazi texts such as

Danishmendname, feature the same terminology. Before the first meclis, the GHP has a prologue

(sebeb-i te’lif) that explains when and why the text was composed and after the last meclis it concludes with its copy date and a list of the high ranking officials who were appointed in

Algeria. Both of these sections seem to have been added by a later copyist since these are written in an extrinsic tone that cannot belong to the author. The very first sentence, which is definitely by the copyist, states that the original text is the work of Seyyid Murad.105 It is followed by a longer section in elevated language that eulogistically describes the ruler Suleyman II (the

102 Ibid, 61-62. 103 IA, Bekir Kütükoğlu, “Safi Mustafa Efendi”. 104 Gallotta, “Seyyid Murad’ın “Gazavat-ı Hayreddin Paşa” adlı eseri” , 148. 105 GHP, 45. The original statement is: “Te’lif-i Seyyid Murad”.

Magnificent), the reigning Ottoman Sultan when the texts were composed. Here, the copyist gives a sense that the text is more like a compilation of different works and stories than an original work written by an author. After the long description of the merits of Suleyman II, the copyist states that “Suleyman Khan had already ordered a book to be written that consisted of the complete gazas of Hayreddin Pasha (Hızır Re’is) who lived during his reign by following the same pattern of the old works written before his reign. Now, (by his order) this book should also be briefly compiled (cem’ idüb) just as the other compilations written until his time.”106 Since it is known that Seyyid Muradi lived during the reign of Suleyman II, it is clear that this section was added later by the copyist.

The second part of prologue, however, switches to a first-person voice and seems to be written originally by Muradi: “After (Suleyman Khan ordered a book to be written about the gazas) Hayreddin Pasha gave this assignment to me. After that, I wrote this book for the companions who wanted to both read aloud and listen easily. I wrote what I directly heard from him, from the other fellow warriors (mücâhid) who engaged in gaza with him, and from what I witnessed when I did gaza with him.”107 The prologue ends with a verse by which the author tries to explain his motivation in literary language: “A man is the one who brings a work into the world / Anyone without a work of his own vanishes where he stands”.108

Overall, the structure and content of the prologue shows that the original text written by

Muradi probably did not have the part added by the copyist, an official introduction typical for courtly texts of the early modern period. When it is compared to the prologue of Safi’s Tevarih,

106 GHP, 45. 107 GHP, 46. 108 Original version of the poem is: “er odur ki dünyada koya bir eser/Esersüz kişinün yirinde yiller eser”.

52 however, which was written for the Ottoman Sultan Murad III (r.1574-1595), the grandson of

Suleyman II, the prologue of the GHP is very short, modest and poorly written. The prologue of

Tevarih consists of its own sub sections each dedicated to the four caliphs and lastly for Murad

III, each embellished with long poems that are not present in the GHP.

After the prologue, both the GHP and Tevarih can be divided into two parts, the first narrating the early exploits of the two corsair brothers and the second narrating Hayreddin’s later career as an Ottoman officer. Both texts start with the conquest of the Aegean island of Lesbos by Mehmed II in 1462.109 They continue with the story of Ya’kub, Oruç and Hızır’s father, which I have already discussed in the previous chapter. Then the focus shifts to Oruç and Hızır as they begin their small-scale corsair activities in the Aegean sea. Then the story moves on to the conquest of Algeria by Oruç Reis, Hızır’s brother, and his death. The appointment of Hizir as

“beg”, the ruler of Algeria by the Ottoman Sultan Selim II follows the death of Oruç and marks a breaking point in plot. Then Suleyman I, the son of Selim I, accedes to the Ottoman throne and various wars with the Holy League, including the Spanish attacks on Tunis, in which Oruç died, serve as a background to Hızır’s promotion to commander of the Ottoman fleet as Hayreddin

Pasha. A description of the victorious Battle of Preveza follows, and after this point the two texts diverge from each other.

The GHP ends with a minor event, the appointment of Hasan Pasha in 1541 as the ruler of Algeria following Hayreddin’s promotion.110 Curiously, the author makes no mention of the famous wintering of the Ottoman fleet in Nice in 1543, nor of Hayreddin Pasha’s death there.

109 GHP, 46, Tevarih, 9b. 110 Ibid, 244.

The only mention be makes of Hayreddin’s death is to indicate the location of his tomb and his legacy.111 This unusual ending suggests that something interrupted the author as he was completing his text. Gallotta interprets this as an indication that Muradi was at that time going to campaign of Hungary, and this prevented him from completing his text.112 When compared to

Tevarih, this explanation becomes plausible. Instead of ending with a minor event like the appointment of a new bey to Algeria, the Tevarih ends with a chapter dedicated to the conquest of Buda Castle, the crowning victory of the campaign of Hungary, under the title of “Haber-i

Feth-i Kal’a-i Budun” (“News from the Conquest of Buda Castle”).113 Since the Tevarih was written after the original GHP, this shows that Safi was able to include the conquest of Buda, an event in which Muradi was a participant.

However, the lack of information about the conquest of Nice and Hayreddin’s death there in our available copy of the GHP is not enough to conclude that Muradi did not complete his work. Another, much shorter manuscript titled Gazavât-ı Hayreddin Paşa located in

Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF. Supplèment. Turc. No.1186) is seemingly the second volume of the GHP, and consists of exactly the missing sections describing Hayreddin’s voyage to Toulon, France and his eventual death in 1546. 114 If this part was to be added to GHP, it would create a complete two-volumes narration of Hayreddin’s life from cradle to grave.

The h.1194/1780 (CE) IU copy of the GHP referenced for this thesis does not include the information that contained in the second volume. Instead, it quickly reports his death in a manner

111 Ibid, 245. 112 Gallotta, “Seyyid Murad’ın “Gazavat-ı Hayreddin Paşa” adlı eseri”, 148. 113 Tevarih, 149b. 114 Gazavât-ı Hayreddin Paşa, BNF supp.Turc no.1186 and catalogued by Blochet in Bibliothèque nationale (France), and E. Blochet, Catalogue des manuscrits turcs. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, (1932).

54 that seems to be an addition to the original text.115 Aldo Gallotta pointed to this as evidence for the existence of another author who pretended to be Muradi. But this is not plausible once we recognize the existence of the second volume of the GHP. If there were another author who wrote this IU copy, as Gallotta insisted, he would have been aware of the second volume of the

GHP, or if not he must at least have known what Hayreddin Pasha was doing between 1541 and

1546 and would have included this in his completed text. Instead, it seems that the eighteenth- century copyist only had access to the first volume, added a paragraph in the prologue to give the text a more literal and official form.

A comparison between the two Mediterranean gaza narratives in terms of manner of writing shows that two styles could co-exist in the sixteenth century Ottoman gaza literature: a modest and informal way of storytelling inherited from the oral tradition of medieval warrior epics and a more formal manner of narration by a court historian of the same century. This raises an important question: What kind of continuties with the medieval Anatolian gaza tradition does the GHP have and what kind of differences? And how does it compare to both the medieval heterodox gaza narratives and the early modern orthodox ones? The next chapter will shed light on the exceptional features of the GHP that make it a product of a transitional period when heterodoxy and orthodoxy intertwined.

IV- Narratological Continuities and Contextual Differences

a. Representations of the Encounters between the Characters

As mentioned before, Levend’s bibliography of gazavatname literature is limited to the texts that narrate either the life of the Sultan or high-ranking Ottoman officials as gazi, or an

115 Gallotta, “Seyyid Murad’ın “Gazavat-ı Hayreddin Paşa” adlı eseri”, 153.

Ottoman battle or conquest as gaza.116 Even if his definition generally fits the gazavatname texts he classifed, the concepts of ruler, high-ranking official and conquest had gradually changed together with the centralization process of the Ottoman state, a process that reached its peak in the sixteenth century. In other words, what is meant by a ruler, an official, or conquest were not the same in the medieval and early modern periods. This transformation was not limited to the political sphere, and had an impact on the the world of the texts as well. The GHP offers a clear illustration of the changing nature of these concepts.

As a group, the authors of early modern Ottoman epics altogether followed the division of world between kafirs (unbelievers) and gazis (people who fight against unbelievers) inherited from the early Islamic epics. Therefore, the main characters in the texts produced in both periods are either gazis or kafirs. In the late medieval Anatolian context, the first category consists of the frontier warlords from different principalities who operated land-based akıns (raids) against the

Byzantine frontier in different parts of Anatolia, and sea-based raids against Venetians in the

Aegean Sea. Therefore, while the gazis in these texts were Turcoman warlords the infidels were

Byzantines or Latins, defined as Rums117, Firenks, Levonis and Gürcis.118 The variety of infidels

116 Levend, Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloǧlu Ali Bey'in Ġazavāt-nāmesi, 4. 117 Even if the meaning of Rum is a debated subject in Ottoman historiography, in Danismendname the author refers to the Byzantine population by Rum and the local language by Rum dili (language of Rum.) For a summary of the debate related to Rum, see Salih Özbaran, “In Search of Another Identity: The ‘Rumi’ Perception in the Ottoman Realm,” Eurasian Studies I (2002): 115-27. 118 Danishmendname, 28 and 143. When it is remembered that the written version of Danismendname dates back to the thirteenth century, it is plausible to conclude that what is meant by Rums (a term derived from Rome) is Byzantines and Firenk (a term derived by Frank) is Latins. Levoni derives from the Armenian King Levon I of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and refers to the Armenians. For a reference to Levonis see p. 143. There is also a reference to Urus and Cerkez for supplementary forces among non-Muslim warriors: “Altmus bin erile gelurler, kamu cerise Firenkdir ve Urusdur ve Cerkezdur” p.60.

56 in the texts thus draws a picture of a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional medieval Anatolia, where both the gazis and infidels came from multiple backgrounds.

The protagonist of the Danishmendname, the main medieval epic representing the gaza tradition of the period, that I will focus on here, is a warlord named Melik Danişmend from

Malatya, a town in central Anatolia, who became friends with Sultan Turasan, the grandson of

Battal Gazi and started to engage in gaza with the permisson of the caliph in Baghdad.119 The gazis in Danishmendname are represented as devout Muslims in two ways. On the one hand, they are literally devout because they not only pray but also know the Qur’an by heart. This is stated clearly in the Danishmendname when “Melik Danişmend started to perform salah (namaz) after he recited the Qur’an from beginning to end in the morning and...”.120 On the other hand, they seem to be warriors who sought opportunities to battles against kafirs and also continually looked for yigits (young men)121 among the kafirs to convert. This constitutes a second essential part of being devout in medieval Anatolia. The author completes his sentence with stating that

“...and he got equipped with his weapons and armours and he mounted his horse to go on a fight” showing the importance of being a “devout warrior”.122

Meanwhile, the kafirs were represented as the local population of Byzantine Empire such as Rums, Gurcis and Levonis and in some extent the Catholics.123 They mostly appear as

119 IA, Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, “Danismendname”. For detail information on a controversial hero of Anatolia, Seyyid Battal Gazi, see IA, “Battal Gazi”. 120 Danishmendname, 21. 121 Literally means “the brave one” but here refers the local soldiers. 122 Danishmendname, 21. 123 Ibid, 164.

57 warlords or warriors (çeri), but sometimes also as priests (papas).124 The encounters between gazis and kafirs in the plot of the Danismendname seemingly happen in the form of both conflict and peaceful contact. In terms of conflicts, thirteenth-century Anatolia certainly offered plenty of opportunity for Muslims and non-Muslims to engage in conflicts with each other. The text gives both the perspective of Muslims and that of non-Muslims regarding these violent encounters. On the one hand, from the perspective of the Muslims, their motivation was to make Anatolia an

Islamic land, which is by its nature “looking for conflict”.125 On the other hand, the text also gives some credit to the non-Muslims’ for their agression, as when Sattat126 (one of the

Byzantine governors) says furiously “If there is anyone from Malatya who attacks the lands of

Rum, I swear I will beat them and chase them off until Baghdad”.127 Even if those references show that both parties were spoiling for fight, the Danismendname does not hide other encounters that end not in conflict but friendship.

One such example is the following encounter and subsequent conversation between

Melik Danismend and a non-Muslim soldier named Artuhi, which sheds light on how the contacts between two parties were narrated in favour of Muslims in a sometimes openly ironic way:

Artuhi: Why did you come to lands of Rum (i.e. Anatolia)? Melik: I will conquer this land. Artuhi: How?

124 Ibid, 78. Ceri is a general term which is used for the soldiers. However, gazi is preferred for the Muslim warriors and ceri for the non-Muslims. When the text presents the perspective of the non-Muslims, Islam Cerisi (soldiers of Islam) is used. 125 Ibid, 20. 126 Michel Balard et Alain Ducellier, « Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes (Xe -XVIe siècles) » in: Revue des études byzantines, tome 62, (2004): 311-313. 127 Danishmendname, 41.

Melik: I will make it a territory of Islam. Artuhi: You seem to be one of the cazu (literally the warlocks)?128 Melik: No way! I am a Muslim. Artuhi: Okay then come and dine with me. You should not be hungry because we have to fight against one another. Melik: I had already had my dinner yesterday and if we dine together it is not appropriate to have a fight. Artuhi: Go dine seperately then. Melik: No way! Then I would be obliged to you. If I eat your food, I would be ungrateful.129 The importance of this conversation is twofold. First, it can be interpreted ironically as an example of medieval gazi diplomacy, since immediately after this conversation Artuhi, admiring the “rhetoric” used by Melik, decided to convert.130 Not only this, but after his conversion he also became a gazi who fought under Melik and side-by-side with the other gazis. But at the same time, the passage shows the perspective of a local non-Muslim soldier who thinks that he is one of the cazu, or “warlocks” when he encounters a gazi. This perspective recalls the term

“metadoxy” (neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy) used by Kafadar to explain the complexity of

Anatolian religious beliefs and practices, that were shared and contested by various confessions and ethnicities.131 Thirteenth and fourteenth-century Anatolia, with its political power vacuum, allowed such metadoxy not only to flourish in practice, but also to be represented through literature with characters such as Melik and Artuhi.

128 Here, what is meant with “cazu” is not clear in the text but instead of witches it seemingly refers to the Turcoman Muslims of Anatolia from the perspective of non-Muslims. Kafadar also marked the mystery of this term. 129 Danishmendname, 20. 130 Danishmendname, 21. 131 Kafadar, Between two worlds, 76.

Whereas the spirit of medieval Anatolian gazi resided in warlords like Melik, who were politically independant of any state, in the early modern context the characters of gaza narratives are mostly the Ottoman rulers and high-ranking officials of Levend’s classification. However, the GHP, despite being written in this later period proves exception to this rule.

Even if the main protagonist of the GHP and Tevarih is Hayreddin Pasha, who later became the provincial governor of Algeria (“Cezayir Beylerbeyi”) and admiral of the Ottoman fleet, the story starts with his earlier career as corsair and gazi Hizir Re’is who had no Ottoman post and nor any patronage from the Ottoman sultan. And even if the titles, Gazavat-i Hayreddin

Pasa and Tevarih-i Hayreddin Pasa imply that the texts narrate the story of a pasha, or Ottoman general, in reality the texts in no way imply that the earlier activities of Hayreddin Pasha, when he was still Hizir Re’is and answered only to his brother Oruc Re’is, were considered any less worthy examples of gaza.

By the same token, the GHP contains various examples of the contact between Hizir and

Oruc Re’is and non-Muslims, and these interactions are multi-faceted in the same way as those from the Danismendname does. The first such encounter that appears in the text involves Hizir

Re’is and a non-Muslim who was hired by him to act as an intermediary for the ransom of his brother Oruc. A revealing passage shows how hard it was for the Ottoman imperial ideology to impose an orthodox sense of gaza. When Oruc was taken captive by infidel ships and brought to

Rhodes, Hizir thought of hiring a merchant who was a neutral figure to negotiate his brother’s redemption.

“There was an infidel merchant named Kirigo whom Hayreddin has known. He usually traded between Lesbos and Rhodes. Hayreddin Re’is gave eighteen thousand akce to him to go to Rhodes and deal with the infidels for the redemption of his brother. Then the merchant invited

60 him to his ship to set sail to Bodrum. In Bodrum, Hayreddin Re’is said: ‘Go and bring me news from my brother, I will wait here.’ The infidel found and met Oruc in Rhodes. He said ‘Your brother sent me to see if it is possible to save you. He wonders if he needs to buy your freedom or to take other measures.’ Oruc said ‘You will keep what I am going to say now secret. I arranged a way to free myself from this situation. God knows if it will work or not but you go and inform my brother about it’. Then the infidel left.”132 After this conversation, the text reveals the details of Oruc’s plan, which involves another example of an encounter just as the one between Hizir and the merchant.

“There was an infidel in Rhodes named Santurlu Oglu whom Oruc had known before. He was a well known person who was always friendly towards Oruc. One day Oruc met him and said he had an offer for him. Oruc said:’ Since we have been friends, buy me from them and I will be at your service.’ Santurlu Oglu said: ‘That would be great if they are willing to sell you.’”133

After this encounter, the author explains how Oruc and Santurlu Oglu planned a scene together, in which Santurlu Oglu acted as if he were seeing Oruc for the first time when the captains brought him to a shop where other merchants used to gather. He offered a deal to buy

Oruc and the captain accepted to sell him. But although the plan at fist seemed to work, according to the captive trade rules of Rhodes every deal had to be approved by the governor, and in this case he refused. Before Oruc was taken captive again, Hizir’s go-between Kirigo saw the situation and confessed everyhting to the governor. The author then concludes with a saucy comment, remarkable for its style that clearly reflected an oral narrative register:

“The damn merchant infidel gossipped with the governor about Oruc. Then he was rewarded by the governor and also he kept the money given by Hayreddin Re’is. Now, ask yourself if there is anyone else who is a great betrayer like Kirigo? His friendship lasts until he gets a better offer.”134

132 GHP, 48 133 GHP, 48-49. 134 GHP, 49.

Even if the text does not give an idea of what kind of a captivity Oruc experienced in

Rhodes, nor does he offer any details of how he managed to see and meet with these intermediaries –who were his acquaintances- it is clear that these kinds of personal relationships were accepted as a normal part of gaza.

b. Geography

The geography in which the medieval Anatolian gazis operated was different from the early modern Mediterranean where the sea gazis functioned. Medieval Anatolia as represented in the contemporary gaza narratives consists of the frontier zones of Bythinia, where the encounters with the Byzantines took place; the Aegean coast and its islands, where the encounters with the

Venetians took place, and the central and eastern provinces of Anatolia, where the encounters with a mixture of non-Muslims including the Byzantines, Armenians, Georgians, and various other peoples from the Caucasus took place. These encounters in those three regions were narrated in different medieval warrior epics such as Saltukname, Dusturname and

Danishmendname respectively. Those sources, except a part in Dusturname that narrates sea raids of Aydinoglu, an Anatolian principalitiy located in the Aegean coast, are based on exploits on land.

Having multiple frontier zones allowed people to engage in the raids in different zones and gradually turned Anatolia into a region of a “dizzying mobility”.135 This mobility is well reflected in Danishmendname, with geographical references to the towns throughout eastern

Anatolia where Melik Danişmend and his fellows travelled and engaged in raids.

135 This term belongs to Kafadar’s Between two worlds.

Map.1: The encounter zone described in Danishmendname. The region in which the early modern Mediterranean seamen operated had its own distinctive features. First of all, as Braudel rightly stated, Mediterranean sea is a composition of many different seas.136 This makes it a regionally divided sea, whose different regions belong to different political entities and therefore various cultures even if corsair activities were a common practice throughout the sea as a whole. This requires us to specify the region where the sea-gazis operated according to GHP. Even if the tradition of sea-raids by Turcoman Muslim seamen in the Mediterranean dates back to the twelfth century, their operations was limited to the Aegean

Sea at that time. It was only in the early modern period, and more specifically the turn of the sixteenth century, that marked the expansion of these seamen in other regions of the

Mediterranean, in a mixed form of Mediterranean corsair and Anatolian gazi traditions.

136 Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1995).

Map.2: The first encounter zone as described in the GHP between 1500-1512.

Map.3: The Levant zone as described in the GHP between 1500-1512.

As shown in the map, the migration of gaza tradition by sea started in Lesbos, one of the

Aegean Island and the base of the fellow gazis under Hızır and Oruç. Their first operations were limited to the Aegean islands, but gradually they started to set sail for the other regions. Where they chose to go was related to the political situation of the region and their relationship with its ruler. They set sail first for the Levant when they allied with the Mamluks, who controled the

Syrian coast at that time. They went to Tunisia when they were under the patronage of the Hafsid ruler there, and operated in the north African coast under his protection. When the Ottoman

Sultan Selim was on his way to Egypt for a campaign, they joined his fleet and sailed with him to

Egypt, thereby becoming clients of the Ottoman ruler. The Spanish threat in Algeria then drew them back to the north African coast to struggle with the Spanish.137 This resulted in the capture of Algeria under the banner of the Ottoman Sultan, confirming their loyalty to the Sultan establishing the north African coast as corsairs’ new base after the Aegean islands. Therefore, the frontier zones where the gaza operations took place can be summarized as the upper Aegean zone where the encounters with the Venetians took place, the lower Aegean zone where the encounters with Rhodesians took place and the north African coastline where the encounters with the Spanish took place.

137 GHP, 96.

Map.4: North African coast zone as described in the GHP.

Even if these operations took place in the early sixteenth century, a high point of Ottoman imperial expansion and centralization in which the which the freelance gaza culture was being rapidly extinguished from the Ottoman hearthlands, the Mediterranean presents a different picture resembling medieval Anatolia with its different frontier zones, and its political power- vacuum that enabled many political entities co-exist.

c. Language and Terminology

The similarities in terms of language between Danishmendname and GHP are the third important component of the narratological continuities between medieval Anatolia and early

66 modern Mediterranean. A common feature of all medieval Anatolian warrior epics is the use of simple sentence structure and informal Turkish, particularly in dialogues. 138

The way that Muradi used the language in GHP recalls this. Indeed, the language of GHP sometimes is more vulgar than informal. This is particularly the case when giving voice to the unbelievers, as in the following example:

“Türk kısmına hemân ziyâde akça virdikden sonra evlâdını bile satar degil ki esîr.” (“If you give the Turks money, let alone the captives, they even sell their fathers”)139

Another example can be seen in the following sentence said by Hizir Re’is to a priest in the text:

“Benüm akçaya ihtiyâcum yokdur, var kıralun olacak köpege gördügün gibi söyle!”

(“Go and tell your damn king that I do not need your money.”)140

The choice of Muradi in using simple phrasing and a vulgar language probably stems from his personal background as a sailor in Hizir Reis’ crew, meaning he was far from the level of education typical of the literati of the Ottoman court. However, it is also probably the case that his writing was designed to intentionally reflect the flavor of stories told in an oral tradition precisely the kind that would have been used among the gazis themselves. By contrast, Tevarih presents a completely different use of language typically of a court historian. While it closely

138 Some examples in original Turkish are the following: “Ne kisilersuz?, Nice kurtuldun?; Muslumanam.” “Who are you?; “How did you survive”; “I am Muslim”. 139 GHP, 109. 140 Ibid, 111.

67 follows the basic plot of Muradi’s text, it seems that the author was very selective towards the vulgar words and expressions of Muradi, almost all of which he excludes from the text.

With regard to terminology, both GHP and Tevarih differ from the terminology seen in the medieval sources. They present new maritime terms that reflect the new conditions of both the sea with the words such as levendân-i gaziyân (gazi seamen), tekne (ship), barca (type of a ship used by non-Muslims), kara ġazalıġı (land gaza), etc. They also freely use words of foreign,

Western origin, such as kapudan (captain), korsan (corsair), korsanlık etmek (to do piracy), korsanlık gaza (piracy gaza), sinyor (Sp.Señor) and so on. Those words, which were the product of new Mediterranean context of interaction, shows the inclusive nature of the gaza phenomenon, which is able to adapt to different cultural and environmental contexts.141

Another important feature is the direct involvement of the author in the text as a narrative persona, something that is common to both the Danishmendname and GHP. This willingness of the narrator to show himself to the audience appears in phrases such as “Let’s move on to the infidels”, “Let’s now talk about gazi Hayreddin Re’is”, “Now it is time to tell the story of Melik

Danismend”, and so on.142 This direct language, as if the author is talking to an audience in an oral setting, is yet another element that the GHP shares with medieval texts but not with the courtly texts like Tevarih. Instead, Tevarih narrates the same encounters between Hızır, Oruç,

Kırıgo and Santurluoglu in a different way, without the involvement of the author as a persona.

141 Henry Kahane, The lingua franca in the Levant; Turkish nautical terms of Italian and Greek origin (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1958).

142 The original Turkish version is the following: “Şimdi biz kafirlere gelelüm”, “Şimdi gelelim ol gaziler serfirâzı Hayreddin re’ise” in GHP, 52-74. “Gelelüm bu yana Melik Danişmend hikayetine” in Danishmendname, 54.

All in all, the plot is the same in both texts, but Tevarih diverges from GHP with its elevated, Persianate language, and its long and sophisticated sentences, proving that it was intended by an author to be read as a work of high literature. By contrast, GHP had a vernacular language with short and direct sentences reflective of an oral setting. The difference can be summarized with one last example from the same point in both texts. They are sentences with the same basic meaning within context, expressed in almost completely different manners:

The GHP: “Kimseye ihtiyaçları yog idi.” (They did not need anybody) The Tevarih: “Nizam-ı halleri muntazam idi.” (Their living conditions were proper)143

d. Representation of Habits and Rituals

The last point that helps to reveal the continuities and differences between the gaza phenomena in medieval Anatolia and the early modern Mediterranean is their ways of representing two distinct life styles: terrestrial and maritime. Even if the life on land and that on sea intrinsically differ and require distinctive economic and cultural mechanisms of subsistence, war, trade and negotiation, the representations of those life-styles in the texts contain many similar elements.

First of all, the question of what is meant to be a gazi in the medieval period should be answered and evidenced with a contemporary source. As explained in the first part of this thesis, the post-Manzikert (1071 CE) period in Anatolia witnessed the co-existence of various

Turcoman principalities and confederations of frontier warriors, led by strongmen who were

143 GHP, 47 and Tevarih, 11a.

69 defined as gazis in the sources.144 Danishmendname portrays Melik Danişmend, its protagonist gazi, as this kind of a warrior, who operated in the frontier zones of the central and eastern

Anatolia in the pursuit of possible encounters with Rum, Firenk, Gürci and Levoni warriors.

Those encounters ending with a raid, the taking of captives, pillage, and occasionally with conversion of Melik’s adversaries to Islam, were considered as gaza.145 Meanwhile, in the midst of recounting this long, uninterrupted series, battles and confrontations, the text also reflects the habits, rituals and practices observed by those who were within the gazi brotherhoods. Of these, the sharing of wealth was seemingly the most highly valued quality of a gazi leader, and is emphasized in the text. After a battle against the ruler of Bayburd (Palu Beyi)146, for example, the text concluded: “God knows how much booty they brought when Melik Danişmend Gazi and a thousand of fellow gazis returned. He (Melik Danişmend) shared all of it with the gazis.”147

This quality fits in well with Kafadar’ term “contradictory values”, which refers to the co-existence of materialism and spiritualism as a central quality of the medieval gazi ethos. Thus, alongside the battles, raids, sharing of booty, and conversions, the medieval gazis are also represented as devout Muslims in a complex way that includes both daily prayer, reciting the

Qur’an, and also spiritual dreaming.148 Danishmendname starts with two dreams in the same night, one of Melik Danişmend who dreamed of the Prophet Mohammad, and one of Sultan

144 Norman Housley, The Crusade in the Fifteenth Century Converging and competing cultures, (Taylor and Francis, 2016.) 145 This can be evidenced with various examples from Danishmendname: “Varalar Ruma hoş gaza kılalar (Let them go To Rum and do gaza), p.11, Gaza kılanlarin can-ı hak içün (For the name of the warriors who do gaza), p.59 and 67, Bu dem kim cem’ olubdur ehl-I Islam, gazayiçün gelübdür kâm u nâkâm (Whoever among the Muslims comes here now, it is for gaza either either lucky or not), p.66. 146 Palu is an old name for Bayburt, a city still exists in eastern Anatolia. 147 Danishmendname, 97. 148 The place of dreaming in medieval Anatolian and Ottoman history is actually more than being one of the features of gaza narratives. Osman’s Dream is accepted as one of the foundational myths of the Ottoman Empire.

Turasan, his companion, who dreamed of his ancestor-hero Seyyid Battal Gazi. Both were asked the same question: “Why haven’t you engaged in gaza?”149 Melik Danişmend was also told by the Prophet that he would encounter a man named Suleyman, a prophecy that would come true at later parts of the text.150 Even if the role of dreaming (ru’ya) in literature can be traced back to early Islamic times, its use in medieval gaza texts serves a particularly proment role as is a kind of source of legitimacy for the gazi path, which is attributed the Prophet and older gazis such as

Seyyid Battal Gazi.151

Yet another feature of gaza and gazi in the medieval Anatolia is their relationship to hierarchy, both internal and external. Internally, First, the role of leader in a gazi brotherhood is represented as that of a mentor and councellor, instead of a commander, who rules by consultation. A gathering between Melik Danişmend and his companions after learning that the unbelievers were forming a strong army provides a good example for that:

“Melik Danişmend and the other gazis gathered in a chamber and Melik said: ‘My fellows! What would you suggest to do?’ and the gazis said: ‘We can do what you suggest to do’”.152

Externally, the medieval Anatolian gazis in Danishmendname seem to have two sources of legitimacy. The first, as defined above, were dreaming of the Prophet and older gazis. The second and more worldly source was the Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad. In Danishmendname, the

Caliphate is the only politico-religious entity mentioned anywhere in the text, and is understood to legitimize gaza. While the gazis are represented as freelance warriors whose subsistence

149 “Niçün gaza kılmazsın?”, Danismendname, p.10. For another example of Melik Danismend’s another dream, see p.57. 150 Danishmendname, 57. 151 For the full explanation of the role of dreaming in Islam, see IA, “Ruya”. 152 Danishmendname, 140.

71 depended entirely on their own effort, they are nevertheless careful to maintain symbolic ties to the Caliph, periodically sending him gifts or a share from their booty.153

To summarize the medival gaza: politically speaking, gaza was understood to mean autonomous actions and independence from local authorities, but deference to the Caliph; economically speaking, it meant a quest for booty to be shared with one’s fellows; and finally, spiritually speaking, it meant Muslim devotion in the uniquely metadox sense of medieval

Anatolian described previously.

Now let us turn to the GHP, and explore the extent to which each of these features are present despite its provenence from the early modern Mediterranean. To begin with the question of internal hierarchies, Hızır, Oruç and their crew are portrayed freelancer gazis who engage in sea raids and trade activities (ticaret) with their ships.154 They clearly seem to reproduce, in a new maritime environment, the autonomous, egalitarian organization of Anatolian warriors under the command of gazi warlords. The sea raids they engaged in primarily targeted infidels, specifically were the ships of Venice and Rhodes, and what the authors call “trade” (ticaret) later reveals itself as a form of prisoner exchange, thereby bringing them into routine contact with non-Muslims. All of the incidents of raiding and the taking of captives end with a money for the captives’ return, which constitutes an important feature of early modern Mediterranean gaza not obviously present in the medieval gaza narratives.155 Still, the prisoners were seen as a kind of

“booty” by the gazis; they always sell them for money, and like booty this money would then be

153 Danishmendname, 130. 154 GHP, 47 and Tevarih, 10. 155 GHP, 50.

72 distributed among the gazis who joined the venture as well as the local people under their protection. 156

Another point is that this process is represented as reciprocal. When a gazi is taken captive by the non-Muslims, the crew always offers to pay for his release.157 For example, when

Hizir’s brother Oruc was taken captive, Muradi says that they sent money to the non-Muslims who kept him prisoner through a non-Muslim intermediary.158 All these activities show that contact under the name of conflict is characteristic of being a Mediterranean “freelance gazi”, a particularly clear expression of which can be seen in the following passage:

“When Hayreddin realised that the captains were looking for new oarsmen, he immediately brought his eight hundred twenty seven captives and sold them according to their values. Then he divided the money into two. The first half was for the pencik159 and the second half was kept for the fellow gazis. He shared all of the second half with another money in stash with the gazis and all gazis became wealthy.”160

The importance of this statement is twofold. First it shows that the wealth for the subsistance of other gazis is not only material booty, but also the income resulting from the captive trade. Second, it reveals a striking similarity with medieval Anatolian gaza as depicted in the Danishmendname regarding the disposal of wealth.161 Another example illustrating the relationship betwen Hizir, Oruc and their crew is worth to mention here to complete the picture of “contradictory values” shared by gazis of medieval Anatolia and the early modern

156 GHP, 60-76 and Tevarih, 14b.-15. 157 GHP, 73. 158 GHP, 53. 159 Pencik was an Ottoman tax charged to the gazis according to the amount of captives that they held. Gazis must have paid 1/5 of the value of their captives to the Ottoman state. See IA, “Pencik.” 160 GHP, 73. 161 GHP provides a lot of example of booty sharing. See, pp.83-84.

Mediterranean. What is particularly striking is the self-consciousness with which he adresses the question of gazi autonomy and its apparent contradictions:

“Using the warriors requires pleasing them with either gifts or shares off wealth to make them loyal. Yet in every affair, using warriors is an old method and rule. They (the warriors) should be talked and treated well. Now, were the gazis of the seventeen-piece ship the slaves or the servants of Hayreddin Re’is? If those voluntary warriors who act by their own wanted to behave disgracefully, were they not able to do that? Hayreddin Re’is and Oruc Re’is have only one ships each, but they are also the masters of the other ships because they are welcome in the ships of all Muslim seamen (levend) in the Mediterranean. Now what I want to say is, Hayreddin Re’is and Oruc Re’is became the masters of all gazis in the other ships thanks to their kindness and courtesy.162

Let us now turn to the second feature of Mediterranean sea-gaza, which involves the question of religious devotion. As was the case in Danishmendname, Hızır and Oruç are represented as devout Muslims who pray daily, but also dream. Oruç’s escape from a ship where he was taken captive provides a remarkable example for the rituals of sea-gazis. According to the author, before having escaped, Oruç dreamed of a pir (an older mystico-religious guide) who said:

“Oruç! You are suffering in the name of Islam, salvation is soon, be patient for it. There is no need for money for your salvation since God will save you without any reward. Be calm and keep going on gaza.”163

After this dream, Oruç heroically escapes from the infidel ship by getting rid of his chains and jumping into the sea, thereby fulfilling the prediction in his dream. Later, the same pir appears to Oruç again and commands him both to head for North Africa, and to obey his brother:

162 GHP, 72. 163 Ibid, 50.

“Oruç! Now turn to the Arab lands because you have to do gaza there. And this is my advice to you: Do not argue with your brother! You are older than him but it is him who is favoured by God.”164

Besides the remarkable similarity in the use of dreams as a tool for legitimacy, it is also important to note that the mystical motifs related to dreams are present in the GHP but missing in Tevarih even if the accompanying passage is otherwise the same. This was probably a conscious move to excise this visibly dervish/Sufi motif from the courtly versions.

Finally, the way the early modern gazis operated in the Mediterranean is the last parallel feature to be addressed. The GHP provides many details about the structure of its gazi brotherhood, characterized by regular gatherings of Hızır and Oruç with their fellow gazis. The brothers seem to be willing to gather and discuss with other gazis just like the “primus inter pares” frontier warlords of medieval Anatolia.165 Also of note are the alliances and ties of patronage with local rulers that they forge similar to those of the Danishmendname but also more complicated because of the geographical position of the Mediterranean, surrounded by various

Muslim political entities such as the Ottoman Empire, Mamluk Sultanate and Hafsids of Tunisia.

The balance that they tried to keep between their autonomy and their need for a strong patron is remarkably reflected in both GHP and Tevarih including in ways that involved the mediation of non-Muslims. In one instance, Oruç apparently sent a European boy (Firenk oġlanı), who was presumably his captive, as a gift to the sultan of Egypt. 166

164 GHP, 73. 165 Ibid, 89. 166 GHP, 60.

This alliance with the Mamluk sultan went hand in hand with patronage from Prince

Korkud. However, the Ottoman struggle for throne between Bayezid II and his son Korkud ended with the ascendancy of Selim, Korkud’s brother, and this signaled trouble for Hızır and

Oruç:

“When Sultan Selim ascended the throne, he started to seek for his brother Korkud who fled. At that time the admiral of the navy was Iskender Pasha who was very cruel. He was not willing to allow any ship to operate in the Mediterranean. When he heard of this, Hayreddin Re’is said: ‘It is not the time to set sail in the Mediterranean’”.167

By no means, however, did this mean the end of the brothers’ diplomacy. Instead, they soon also attempted to ally with the new Ottoman sultan by sending extravagant maritime gifts to him as well:

“Hayreddin sent a ship to Selim, the Ottoman Sultan, as a gift.”168

All in all, what makes Hızır and Oruç freelance gazis is not only their willingness to share their loot, but also their tendency to switch from one Muslim authority to another across a shared Mediterranean landscape: Tunisia under the Hafsid dynasty, Egypt under the Mamluks, the Aegean sea coast under the Ottomans. The booty and the prisoners’ ransoms they collected financed the gifts they presented to these rulers, but was distributed to multiple rulers in order to maintain a balance and maximize the gazis freedom of action. This balanced policy also allowed them to be hired as mercenaries in time of war by multiple combatants. Muradi relates, for example, that the Mamluk ruler of Egypt wanted to hire Oruç for his Indian expedition, while at almost the same time the Ottoman ruler wanted Hayreddin to join his fleet for campaign against

167 Ibid, 60. 168 Ibid, 76.

Mamluk Egypt. Thus, the lesson for the historian is not only that the sea gazis were in contact with infidel, but also that they were not necessarily loyal Ottomans. Instead the only constant in their behavior was their loyalty to themselves, a loyalty which they justified through the language of gaza. 169

From a literary-historical perspective, all these examples show how the centuries-long tradition of gaza was imprinted on the authors’ mind when constructing their narratives, even in the case of Safi, a court historian rather than a participant in the gazi milieu he described. If Safi nevertheless reproduced the same basic themes, and communicated the same basic values, it was simply because Muradi’s text was his only source, or because he somehow felt obliged to adhere to Muradi’s model out of a sense of respect. Rather, for Safi as well the ideals embedded in the long narrative tradition of gaza were part of his world, a world in which these stories were inevitably comprehended and composed within the framework of gaza. As we have seen, as a court historian Safi could depart from of the specifics: using elevated language, excising particular passages, introducing rhyming verse, and so forth. But what he could not do was to seperate himself from the basic framework of gaza. And this was not his choice to follow or not, but a basic precondition of his narrative.

Since all stories, in order to be embued with meaning, must in every period of history conform to the dominant narrative framework of that time and place, Muradi or Safi or the early modern gazavatname authors were not exceptions for having used gaza to make their stories intelligible. Instead, they were essentially the same as modern historians, who for the last century

169 GHP, 50.

77 have inevitably fallen back on the “conflict or contact” dichotomy when discussing

Mediterranean history despite many concerted to develop perspectives that were new.

V- Final Remarks

As this part has sought to show, there were many important continuities between gaza as described in the medieval Danishmendname and in the early modern GHP and Tevarih. showed with the examples from different sources. The most important thematic continuity is that both texts use the categories that were imprinted on the narrators’ minds through centuries-long gaza tradition: holy warriors (gazi, mujahid)170 and unbelievers/infidels (kafir). At first sight, this division might seem as a sharp and indelible distinction, clearly drawing reductive line between

“us” and “them”, and reducing gaza itself to “holy war” in the most uncompromising and simplistic sense. However, our analysis has sought to show the complexity of gaza by giving specific examples of its many different elements: trade, prisoner exchange, conversion, frontier raiding, corsairing, booty sharing, fellowship gatherings and the hiring of go-betweens.

This complexity of gaza was inherited from medieval Anatolia and the similar features between the gaza tradition of medieval Anatolia and early modern Mediterranean were illustrated with reference to three important sources from those periods. As a result of this analysis, GHP emerged as the product of a transitional period of the sixteenth century when the

Ottomans had achieved the central authority over Anatolia, but not in the Mediterranean.

Therefore, while GHP has until now been considered by many historians as an example of a text produced in a more orthodox, imperial environment, it is in fact an exception to this environment that shows the limits of the imperial cultural project to impose an orthodox and hierarchical new

170 Mujahid means someone who exercises jihad.

78 meaning on the sense of gaza tradition. There are at least two reasons for that. First, the specific conditions of the Mediterranean, where no one had a political hegemony but the corsairs, contrasted the historical experience of the core lands of the Ottoman empire. Second, the gaza tradition of the medieval Anatolian Turcoman warriors was not only a socio-political reality of the time, but also a transcedent literary phenomenon that determined people’s ability to turn experience into narration.

Even a quick glance at gaza texts is enough to realize that the authors of the period followed the same tradition and used the framework of gaza to write their stories in a way that conformed to what they had either heard or read before. No matter how orthodox or heteredox it was by definition, gaza should be seen as a way of understanding what has been heard or experienced and transforming this comprehension into narrative, in other words, a tool that makes knowledge intelligible and allows people to put it into words. Its adoption was not a deliberate choice of writers who were obliged to write within the limits of the imperial ideology, nor an effort to compose epic narratives about the heroic achievements of gazis. It is true that there was a court-oriented tradition of history writing in almost every early modern empire, so it would be naïve to neglect the presence of an imperial domain behind the production of these texts.171 However, it is equally an oversimplification to see them simply as the product of a top- down effect. The medieval concept of gaza led to an accumulation of texts that gradually transformed gaza into a a narrative tradition. Rather than imposed on early modern writers from above, it was already waiting for them, there was no obvious alternative to it. Gaza had the power to transform knowledge into words by creating categories with flexible meanings making

171 Gallotta, “Seyyid Murad’ın “Gazavat-ı Hayreddin Paşa” adlı eseri”, 147.

79 it easier both to grasp the knowledge and to tell a story. For the concept of gaza, these categories are Muslim heroes who were mostly referred as “gazi” or “mujahid” and non-Muslim others who were commonly labeled as “infidels”. Those categories reflect how knowledge had been filtered throughout centuries in Anatolia. This filter is the concept of gaza and for this reason, gaza should be problematized as a conceptual reality, rather than simply debated as a socio-political reality.

I will conclude this part with some questions: How did gaza settle in the minds of people and constitute their understanding of the world? How did it transform itself from being a tradition among the Turcoman frontier warlords of Anatolia to being a divine imperial ideology of an empire that, in time, would go so far as to depict the state’s supression of revolts within the empire in the eighteenth century as gaza?172 These are questions we will turn to in the final section of this thesis.

PART III-PARADIGMS

Er odur ki dünyada koya bir eser

Esersüz kişinün yirinde yiller eser

Anonymous173

172 Agâh Sırrı Levend lists the examples of this kind of gazavatanames in Agâh Sırrı Levend,, and 'Ali Bey Mihaloǧlu, Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloǧlu Ali Bey'in Ġazavāt-nāmesi. 173 GHP, 46.

I- Introduction

In a paper presented to the Ottoman Studies Conference at the University of Wisconsin, in 1971, the pioneering world historian William McNeill defined the Ottoman Empire as “the most successful of a number of ghazi principalities that arose along the Muslim-Christian frontier in Asia Minor,” labeling the rulers of Anatolia “ghazis”.174 The conference was an attempt to place the Ottoman Empire in a global historical context when the Ottoman Empire was still being viewed as a part of a Middle Eastern/Islamic imperial tradition in a Weberian way. And even if McNeill never explained what he meant by “ghazi” in his conference paper, the timing is noteworthy considering the literal meaning of gaza and gazi since the 1970s was the time when the idea of “World History” first began to embrace the goal of transcending area studies and developing a new understanding of connected-histories.175 This new idea gives particular attention to “encounter zones” such as the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the

Eurasian steppe, all three of which included the Ottoman Empire as one of its actors. The tiny detail that I captured from his paper has a particular importance for this study. First of all, it is ironic to hear a term that intrinsically and literally presupposes two segregated worlds to define the early Ottomans in a conference that attempts to bridge those worlds. But more importantly, it foresees that the concepts of gaza and gazi actually could serve the purposes of a “connected history” approach.176

174 Karpat, The Ottoman state and its place in world history, 36. 175 The specific term “connected histories” was not introduced by Subrahmanyam until the lates 90s in Sanjay Subrahmanyam, "Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia" Modern Asian Studies 31 (1997): 735-762. I use here the term to show the idea behind the attempts in the 70s which were later theorized by Subrahmanyam. 176 For more about the discussion on the attempts to see the Ottomans as part of global history, see Palmira Brummett, Mapping the Ottomans sovereignty, territory, and identity in the early modern Mediterranean, (New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2015) and Virginia H. Aksan, and Daniel Goffman, The early modern Ottomans: remapping the Empire, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Since the 1970s, historians have seen a consolidation of this new historical trend in which frontier regions are portrayed as multicultural or cosmopolitan zones instead of zones of inter- civilizational conflict. This multiculturalist trend has become particularly dominant since the

2000s. By no means coincidentally, this has occurred against the background of a larger multiculturalist dissatisfaction with the idea of “civilizations” and with the idea of civilizational conflict.177 As an antidote of the evils of conflict historiography, the early modern Mediterranean was discovered and re-invented as a cradle of an optimistic multiculturalism, which brought into stark relief the prejudices and intolerance of its modern counterpart. This “early modern

Mediterranean nostalgia” started to emerge in the late 90s, gained momentum after 2000s and has today become the dominant paradigm in Mediterranean studies.178

II- Two Sources, Two Paradigms and Two Mediterraneans

Multiculturalism or cosmopolitanism can be understood as a three-fold approach to studying the Mediterranean. To begin with, it has a temporal aspect including the medieval and early modern periods. It has a specific emphasis for the period after the Spanish victory of

Reconquista and the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, when two important entities were replaced by their opposite counterparts: the Muslims in Spain was replaced by Catholic kingdoms, and the Byzantine Empire by the Ottomans.179 The sixteenth century marked the beginning of a new, recognizably modern world in which two major world empires established

177 Samuel P. Huntington, The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996). 178 Fikret Adanir, “Religious communities and ethnic groups under imperial sway : Ottoman and Habsburg lands in comparison” in The historical practice of diversity: transcultural interactions from the early modern Mediterranean to the postcolonial world eds. Dirk Hoerder, Christiane Harzig, and Adrian Shubert, (New York: Berghahn Books, . 2003), Daniel J. Vitkus, Turning Turk: English theater and the multicultural Mediterranean, 1570-1630, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). 179 Rothman, “Interpreting Dragomans: Boundaries and Crossings in the Early Modern Mediterranean”, 1.

82 themselves on opposite sides of the Mediterranean, with France and the Italian states in between.

At the same time, the nostalgia for a cosmopolitan Mediterranean is spatial. Independent of historical circumstances, this unique region has been a scene of interactions between various political entities and a place of intersection of three different religions, Christianity, Islam and

Judaism. Finally, the construct of the cosmopolitan Mediterranean has a specific thematic focus on encounters and the agents of encounter: corsairs, dragomans, merchants, renegades, and so forth.180 Among these groups, particular attention has been paid to corsairs –both Muslim and

Christian- because of their flexible and pragmatic motives.181 The corsairs, who are the protagonists of this thesis as well, have emerged as one of the symbolic protagonists of the multicultural and cosmopolitan Mediterranean. They are portrayed as the subjects of the

Mediterranean (not of any empire) and “free spirits” of the sea. The social, legal and economic practices of these people stand as a testament to the cosmopolitan and multicultural characteristics of the Mediterranean as a whole, and allow us to conclude that there might be something else in the early modern world apart from the religious conflicts reflected by the narratives. This view insists on the fact that the interaction of these various peoples transforms the region to a multicultural and cosmopolitan zone. And with this new approach, the old gaza/gazi concepts are subjected to a pejorative meaning, and the literary sources of the genre are put aside as the biased, simplistic representations of a more nuanced reality.182

180 Rothman, “Interpreting Dragomans: Boundaries and Crossings in the Early Modern Mediterranean”and Gurkan, "Mediating Boundaries: Mediterranean Go-Betweens and Cross-Confessional Diplomacy in Constantinople, 1560- 1600". 181 Maria Fusaro, Colin Heywood, and Mohamed Salah Omri, Trade and cultural exchange in the early modern Mediterranean Braudel's maritime legacy, (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2010). 182 Even if he was not a historian of this trend, Heath Lowry states “If, as we shall see, the early Ottoman forces included Christians (e.g., Köse Mihal) in their numbers, we are faced with the possibility that any reference to gaza and gazis in contemporary sources may indeed reflect the literary meaning of these terms rather than the social cultural reality which actually existed in the formative years of the Ottoman state.” Lowry, Ottoman State, 9.

These temporal, spatial and thematic aspects are the three main pillars of this new way of

Mediterranean history, which posits a multicultural and cosmopolitan world that transcends the ethnic and religious based conflicts in the region. Almost all the works written in the last three decades on Mediterranean history ascribe this alternative paradigm, to the point that it has now become something of a new historiographic orthodoxy. Even if, not long ago, it was a revisionist

“alternative to the once dominant ‘Clash of Civilizations’ model”, it now seems to be the dominant paradigm, just as the gaza concept was once for the historians of medieval Anatolia and early modern Ottoman empire. In this new dominant paradigm, there is no place for zealots, or for warriors and rulers whose ambitions were driven by their religious convictions, but only for “pragmatic” individuals whose activities were conditioned by trade, diplomacy, and elightened self-interest. It is with this in mind that we now return to the thought-provoking question raised by Molly Greene, with which this thesis began:

“What is the Mediterranean? Is it a collection of states bound by treaty obligations to one another? Or is it a cultural or even a civilizational frontier where two hostile religions face each other in perpetual enmity? The answer has always been an awkward mix of both.”

In this thesis, I have argued that gaza narratives are the perfect sources to reflect the early modern Mediterranean’s “awkward mix of both,” an awkwardness that was itself inherited from medieval Anatolia. However, my argument so far have left one question unanswered: Given all the profound changes between the medieval and early modern worlds, why could the Ottomans not give up using the gaza concept as the basis for their historical narratives? Why did an early modern gazi seaman like Muradi, the author of GHP, compose a medieval kind of frontier narrative to describe the corsair activities of his companions? Why did a court historian like Safi, the author of Tevarih, follow the same model with only perfunctory changes in registery? Why

84 did even the later Ottoman writers continue to rely on the gaza template, even when depicting the state’s suppression of its own rebellious subjects? In this final section I will attempt to answer those questions with a theory related to the nature of the composition of narratives introduced by Louis Mink, an influential philosopher of history. I will argue that in the early modern period instead of being imposed on the historians by the ideology of the state, gaza has gradually become the key tool of the early modern historian to transform his knowledge into comprehension and composition. Not surprisingly, it coincides with the replacement of oral tradition as a source of knowledge with the written manuscripts not only as a source of knowledge but also as a tool that allows the writer/characters to be remembered as the anonymous prose above indicated. The importance of having a written work by copying the past works instead of writing down what had been heard would have a primary importance to understand how gaza became the main element of the early modern mindset that can only be grasped by discovering the relationship between the knowledge, comprehension and composition.

III- Gaza or Multiculturalism? How to Convert a Knowledge into Comprehension

Whether or not the early Ottomans were gazis, and what precisely this might have meant has long been a subject of scholarly debate, to the point that today it is a subject that seemingly everyone studying Ottoman history should somehow have an opinon about. An important reason for the popularity of this question is the historian’s never-ending desire to discover and define the origins of something. This is an obsession not only of the contemporary historians, but also their early fellows who provided the written raw materials for later speculations.183 These earlier

183 Aşıkpaşazade. Menakıb ü Tevarih-i Al-i Osman. Ed. Nihal Atsız in Osmanlı Tarihleri (Istanbul, 1947).

85 historians, in turn, based their texts on oral traditions that were the dominant form of accumulating knowledge in the late medieval Anatolia. Early Ottoman historical texts, then, reflect the process by which oral knowledge was converted into written understanding. But today, these texts are generally studied only to find answers about the events they describe, or about the authors who wrote them, never in terms of their own influence on later texts. Because of the generally accepted notion of “Ottoman centralisation,” that is supposed to have marked a rupture between the medieval period from the early modern “Classical Age,” medieval gazi narratives were never evaluated as the foundational texts that shaped the Ottomans’ understandings of the encounters that continued well into that “Classical Age” of empire.

This question about the relationship between knowledge, comprehension, and accumulation of texts is what has brought me to Louis Mink’s important article about the ways of comprehension that illuminate the logic behind narration.184

Mink begins with the simple observation that no theory of historical knowledge has yet explained what makes past knowable and “what it is to construct a historical narrative”.185 In order to provide at least a partial answer, Mink introduces what he calls “comprehension” which is a key for establishing connections between different facts and making them intelligible, and differs fundamentally from simple “knowledge”.186 In Mink’s definition, comprehension is a mental act that connects the different pieces of knowledge and gives knowledge its entirety. As an outcome, it attaches those pieces and builds up a coherent understanding which can be retained in the mind. In other words, the knowledge is filtered through different modes of

184 Louis O. Mink, "History and Fiction as Modes of Comprehension" New Literary History 1 (1970.): 541-558. 185 Mink, 544. 186 Ibid, 548.

86 comprehension into understanding. Those modes, according to Mink, can be summarized as three: theoretical, categoreal and configurational.187 For the analysis of this present study, I shall focus specifically on the categoreal mode and its conceptual framework will be fruitful. Mink explains the categoreal mode as follows:

“The relation of theory to its objects is that it enables us to infer and coordinate a body of true statements about that kind of object; the relation of categories to their objects is that they determine of what kind those objects may be. Thus a set of categories is what is now often called a conceptual framework: a system of concepts functioning a priori in giving form to otherwise inchoate experience.”188

According to Mink, the categoreal mode of comprehension works through categories and concepts and the nature and characteristics of the objects are determined according to which concept they are in relation. For the purposes at hand, I shall move Mink’s analysis a step further and add another ring to this chain, a final stage that transforms this comprehended knowledge into something written that allow it to be read and grasped by other minds: the composition. If knowledge is separate pieces of a puzzle, then that which allows one to find the right piece for the right place is comprehension, and that which makes the puzzle a single intelligible picture at the end is composition. By adding composition to Mink’s ideas on knowledge and comprehension, we can approach an understanding of how the Ottoman writers composed texts by using gaza as a tool not only to convert their knowledge into comprehension, in other words, to make their narrative intelligible and unforgettable, but also a tool to put what they know into words on a page. I embrace this view at the cost of detaching gaza from its socio-political connotations, in order to gain a deeper understanding in the textual world.

187 Ibid, 549. 188 Ibid, 550.

The reason behind my choice to evaluate gaza within the categorial mode is its ability to function with its certain categories of gazi and infidel. Rather than offering a strictly divided world between Muslims and non-Muslims, gaza tradition offers a flexibly divided world that consists of the category of gazis, which may include former non-Muslims and infidels whose members may be hired as go-betweens when needed. In this kind of a world, where a convert can be a gazi, and a Muslim can be narrated as a betrayor, as in the case of the bey of Tunis who wanted to get rid of the Muslim corsairs as defining them “Turks”, which has ethnic connotations, the categories of Muslim and non-Muslim would not work.189 Therefore, gaza uses the categories of gazi and infidel, which are inclusive enough to reflect the social reality and exclusive enough to establish a categoreal mode of understanding that make the story intelligible.

However, to be clear, what I argue is not simply that gaza was a manner of writing, a textual style employed by Ottoman writers. Instead, it was a tradition of comprehension, a way of making knowledge comprehensible which is something more than a writing style. It is a way of grasping the medieval knowledge which was already emplotted by the accessible medieval gaza narratives. As Nancy Partner stated in her article on Hayden White, “all the historical events we know about in common are always already ﬁrmly emplotted”.190 This is also true for the early modern historian, for whom knowledge of the medieval era had already been emplotted, or filtered through the requisite mental concepts and categories. Therefore, what they saw in the world around them was never independent of how they were used to seeing the world around them.

189 GHP, 125 190 Nancy Partner, "Hayden White (and the Content and the Form and Everyone Else) at the AHA," History and Theory 36 (1997): 102-110.

As Mink rightly states, “the features which enable a story to flow and us to follow, then, are the clues to the nature of historical understanding. An historical narrative does not demonstrate the necessity of events but makes them intelligible by unfolding the story which connects their significance.” When we look at an Ottoman writer who wrote about the life a ruler, the heroic achievements of an Ottoman official or the conquest of a territory, what makes the events in his story significant is not the fact that those events are important. Instead, it is related to how he portrayed those events. Let me ask a simple question: what is it that makes a conquest or a corsair raid significant? I shall answer: nothing but the way you present it. The answer will not be different if I ask what makes a conquest a conquest. “The feature which enables his story to flow and us to follow” is the notion of gaza, the conflict with the infidel that makes the story intelligible and reflects not only the literary meaning but also the meaning gained across the generations.

Scholars who denounce the gaza thesis as a legitimate way to understand the Ottoman past would respond that Ottoman writers were not trying to mirror what actually happened in a mimetic way, but were instead imposing upon the past an idea of gaza that was a construct of

“later imperial ideology.” What I argue is that instead of writing under the influence of this later ideology, those later writers reinforced the discursive hegemony of the gaza tradition in the texts by setting the standards of the ideal of their time. The gaza concept survived not thanks to the later imperial ideology but in spite of it. It was a concept that belonged to the medieval period, and which the centralized Ottoman state would have preferred to extinguish, yet it survived nonetheless. Its role in Mink’s three mental processes to create a narrative compelled the imperial ideology to embrace gaza, not the other way around. Therefore, inherited from the

89 medieval period, gaza turned out to be the dominant early modern paradigm for comprehending the multi-faceted encounters between Muslims and non-Muslims.

CONCLUSION: Is Gaza “the Theory of Everything” of the Ottoman Universe?

This thesis offered an analysis of how the contacts and conflicts in the early modern

Mediterranean were narrated by the Ottoman writers within the limits of a specific concept, gaza.

Literally meaning “Holy War,” gaza is a crucial narrative frame for Ottoman authors writing about encounters with non-Muslims. But the usefulness of the texts produced in this framework as historical sources have largely been dismissed by modern scholars as”biased” or as the products of an imperial ideology that was eager to impose its own idealized vision of the past. In this study, I have revisited three such gaza texts, and subjected them to an analysis to discover:

1) how the changing socio-political context in two different periods and places (medieval

Anatolia and early modern Mediterranean) influenced the perception of contacts and conflicts in the frontier zones; 2) how the medieval Anatolian sense of gaza was transferred to the early modern Mediterranean world with its certain features; and 3) how gaza as a concept with its categorical understanding constituted the Ottoman way to construct a historical imagination.

Both pre-Ottoman Turkish and Ottoman literature reflects a strong taste about this term in both medieval and early modern period as the texts show. Even in the modern era, a state- oriented version of gaza was still being used for narrating the wars of the last century of empire and more interestingly the disputes within the empire. This makes gaza as something inherited from the medieval era and lasted even in the long nineteenth century after having various transformations in meaning. Considering gaza beyond the limits of medieval period and beyond

90 the enthusiasm for the origins of the Ottoman state is an important task and unfortunately neglected in Ottoman historiography. For this reason, this thesis attempted to shed light on at least to the question of how this long-lasted tradition continued in the early modern

Mediterranean. How it survived even in the modern era as a state apparatus would be the topic of another study. By doing so, two important limits of the long-lasting discussion on gaza could be extended. Chronologically, it helps to consider gaza beyond the limits of Ottoman formative years, more specifically the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Thematically, it offers a new understanding of gaza which is beyond its socio-political connotations for explaining the

Ottoman social organization and political rise.

In conclusion, my analysis directed me to think about a possibility to define gaza as “the theory of everything” of the Ottoman universe that can be used in both political, economic and cultural spheres of life. Politically, it can be used to define the frontier warlords of Anatolia, a conquest by an Ottoman Sultan, an ideology against another Muslim ruler, a fortress siege by an

Ottoman general, the Muslim corsairs of the Mediterranean, or a suppression of a riot within the empire. Economically, it can include the frontier raids, the ship raids, the booty sharing and the captive trade. And culturally, it occupies the encounter narratives as the main theme that makes the stories intelligible throughout centuries.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Published and Unpublished Primary Sources

Aşıkpaşazade and Atsız, Nihal. “Menakıb ü Tevârih-i Al-i Osman” in Osmanlı Tarihleri, Istanbul, 1947.

Enveri and Melikoff Irène. Le Destan d’Umur Pacha: Düsturname-i Enveri, Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1954.

Melikoff, Irène. 1960. La geste de Melik Dā niş mend: étude critique du Dā niş mendnā me. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.

Safi. Tevarih-i Hayreddin Paşa, (catalogued as Cihad-name, MS. Add. 24958), The British Library.

Seyyid Muradi, and Yıldız, Mustafa. Ġ azavā t-i H̲ ayreddı̄ n Paş a: (MS 2639 Universitä tsbibliothek Istanbul) : kommentierte Edition mit deutsche Zusammenfassung. Aachen: Shaker, 1991.

Seyyid Muradi (Tchaoush Pacha). Gazavât-ı Hayreddin Paşa, (Supplèment Turc. 1186), Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

Secondary Sources

Adanir, Fikret. “Religious communities and ethnic groups under imperial sway : Ottoman and Habsburg lands in comparison” in The historical practice of diversity: transcultural interactions from the early modern Mediterranean to the postcolonial world, ed. Hoerder, Dirk, Christiane Harzig, and Adrian Shubert. New York: Berghahn Books, 2003.

Aksan, Virginia H., and Goffman, Daniel. The early modern Ottomans: remapping the Empire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Al-Tikriti, Nabil. "The as Justifiable Self-Exile: Ş ehzade Korkud's Wası̄ lat al- (915-916/1509- 1510)". Al-Masaq: Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean. 17 (2005): 125-146.

Balard, Michel and Ducellier, Alain. « Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes (Xe -XVIe siècles). » Revue des études byzantines, tome 62. pp. 311-313, 2004.

Beihammer, Alexander D. “Christian Views of Islam in Early Seljuq Anatolia: Perceptions and Reaction in Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia” in Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, ed. Peacock, A. C. S., Bruno De Nicola, and Sara Nur Yildiz. Burlington, VT : Ashgate Publishing Company, 2015.

Blochet, E. Catalogue des manuscrits turcs. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1932.

Braudel, Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1995.

British Museum, and Charles Rieu. Catalogue of the Turkish manuscripts in the British museum, 1888.

Brummett, Palmira. Mapping the Ottomans sovereignty, territory, and identity in the early modern Mediterranean. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Cardini, Franco. Europe and Islam. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, 2001.

Casale, Giancarlo. "The Ethnic Composition of Ottoman Ship Crews and the "Rumi Challenge" to Portuguese Identity". Medieval Encounters. 13 (2007): 122-144.

Darling, Linda T. "Contested Territory: Ottoman Holy War in Comparative Context". Studia Islamica 91 (2000): 133-163.

Dursteler, Eric. “Neighbors: Venetians and Ottomans in Early Modern Galata” in Multicultural Europe and cultural exchange in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, ed. Helfers, James Peter. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2005.

______Venetians in Constantinople: nation, identity, and coexistence in the early modern Mediterranean. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Eksigil, Arda. Ottoman Visions of the West (15th-17th Centuries) MA thesis, McGill University, Montreal, 2014.

Fleet, Kate. “The Ottomans, 1451–1603: A political history introduction.” The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 2: The Ottoman Empire as a World Power, 1453–1603, eds. Kate Fleet and Sureiya Faroqhi, 2013.

Fusaro, Maria, Heywood, Colin and Salah Omri, Mohamed. Trade and cultural exchange in the early modern Mediterranean Braudel's maritime legacy. London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2010.

Gallotta, Aldo. “Seyyid Murad’ın “Gazavat-ı Hayreddin Paşa” adlı eseri”, trans. by Mahmut H. Şakiroğlu. Erdem Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Dergisi 4, 1988.

Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Greene, Molly. A shared world: Christians and Muslims in the early modern Mediterranean. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000.

______Catholic pirates and Greek merchants: a maritime history of the Mediterranean. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2010.

______“The Ottomans in the Mediterranean”, in The early modern Ottomans: remapping the Empire eds. Virginia H. Aksan and Daniel Goffman. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Gü rkan, Emrah Safa. "Mediating Boundaries: Mediterranean Go-Betweens and Cross- Confessional Diplomacy in Constantinople, 1560-1600". Journal of Early Modern History 19 (2015): 107-128.

Housley, Norman. The Crusade in the Fifteenth Century Converging and competing cultures. Taylor and Francis, 2016.

Huntington, Samuel P. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

İ nalcık, Halil. The Ottoman Empire; the classical age, 1300-1600. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973.

İ nalcık, Halil. “Batı Anadolu’da Yükselen Denizci Gazi Beylikleri, Bizanslılar ve Haçlılar” in Başlangıçan XVII. Yüzyılın Sonuna kadar Türk Denizcilik Tarihi, eds. Idris Bostan and Salih Özbaran, Deniz Kuvvetleri Basimevi, 2009.

Kahane, Henry. The lingua franca in the Levant; Turkish nautical terms of Italian and Greek origin. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1958.

Kafadar, Cemal. Between two worlds: the construction of the Ottoman state. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.

Karpat, Kemal H. The Ottoman state and its place in world history. Leiden: Brill, 1974.

Levend, Agâ h Sırrı, and 'Ali Bey Mihaloǧ lu. Ġ azavā t-nā meler ve Mihaloǧ lu Ali Bey'in Ġ azavā t- nā mesi. Ankara: Tü rk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1956.

Lewis, Bernard. The Muslim discovery of Europe. New York: W.W. Norton, 1982.

Lindner, Rudi Paul. Nomads and Ottomans in medieval Anatolia. Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1983.

Lowry, Heath W. The nature of the early Ottoman state. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003

Mélikoff, Irène. La geste de Melik Dā niş mend: é tude critique du Dā niş mendnā me. Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1960.

Mink, Louis O. "History and Fiction as Modes of Comprehension". New Literary History. 1 (1970): 541-558.

Murphey, Rhoads. "Seyyid Muradi’s Prose Biography of Hizir Ibn Yakub, Alias Hayreddin Barbarossa: Ottoman Folk Narrative as an Under-Exploited Source for Historical Reconstruction.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 54, no. 4 (2001): 519-32.

Özbaran, Salih. “In Search of Another Identity: The ‘Rumi’ Perception in the Ottoman Realm.” Eurasian Studies I (2002): 115-27.

Partner, Nancy. "Hayden White (and the Content and the Form and Everyone Else) at the AHA." History and Theory. 36 (1997): 102-110.

Peacock, A. C. S., Bruno De Nicola, and Sara Nur Yildiz. Islam and Christianity in medieval Anatolia. Burlington, VT : Ashgate Publishing Company, 2015

Quataert, Donald. "Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes Towards the Notion of “Decline”. History Compass. 1 (2003).

Rothman, E. Natalie. “Interpreting Dragomans: Boundaries and Crossings in the Early Modern Mediterranean.” Comparative Studies in Society and History Vol. 51, No. 4 (Oct., 2009), 771- 800.

______Brokering empire trans-imperial subjects between Venice and Istanbul. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012.

Soucek, Svatopluk. Piri Reis & Turkish mapmaking after Columbus: the Khalili portolan atlas. London: Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 1996.

Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. "Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia.” Modern Asian Studies. 31 (1997): 735-762.

Uzunç arş ılı, İ smail Hakkı. Anadolu beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu devletleri. Ankara: Tü rk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1984.

Ünlü, Reşat Barış. “The Genealogy of a World-empire: The Ottomans in World History,” PhD diss., Binghampton University, 2008.

Wittek, Paul. The rise of the Ottoman empire. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1938.

Vitkus, Daniel J. Turning Turk: English theater and the multicultural Mediterranean, 1570- 1630. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Yurdaydın, Hüseyin. “Muradi ve Eserleri.” Belleten 27, Ankara, 1963.